email_mark

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Mark' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this is reversible, requires any permissions, affects any server-side state persistently, or requires the email to exist first. It also doesn't mention the sourceFolder prerequisite for non-INBOX emails except in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words. However, it could be slightly more complete without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters at only 17% schema coverage. The description adds minimal value: it names three boolean flags but doesn't explain the interaction between them, the conditional sourceFolder requirement, or the behavioral semantics of marking operations across the many sibling email tools in this family. A more complete description is needed for this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate but only lists the field names (read, starred, flagged) without explaining semantics like whether they're tri-state toggles, booleans requiring explicit true/false, or whether omitting them leaves the property unchanged. The sourceFolder parameter, which is conditionally required, gets no elaboration in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Mark an email as read/unread, starred, or flagged' uses a clear verb (mark) and resource (email) and names the three marking operations. However, it overlaps significantly with sibling tools email_batch_mark, email_label, and email_move, and doesn't distinguish itself from those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus email_batch_mark (which likely marks multiple emails) or email_label (which applies labels). The description doesn't state scope (single email vs batch), prerequisites, or when to prefer alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.