mark_unread

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the core state change but does not disclose idempotency, permission requirements, effects on already-unread messages, or other behavioral traits.

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?

One short sentence that leads with the operation and then gives the parameter format. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple and has one parameter plus an output schema, and the description covers the required format. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral side-effect detail leaves gaps for an agent deciding when to call this versus mark_read.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the email_id format (folder:uid) and gives an explicit example (INBOX:1), which the schema alone does not provide.

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 states a specific operation, '标记未读' (mark as unread), on an email identified by email_id. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling mark_read, relying on semantic opposition rather than a direct comparison.

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 is provided about when to use mark_unread versus mark_read or read_email, and no conditions or prerequisites are stated. The only extra context is the email_id format, which supports invocation but not tool selection.

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