Mark Email Read/Unread

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, not read-only, not destructive. The description adds behavioral context such as 'requires user confirmation recommended' and the return of an updated email object, providing extra clarity beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise, with a single introductory sentence and a structured list of arguments. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 description explains the return type (updated email object) and raises ValueError/ValidationError. It does not cover prerequisites like authentication status, but for a simple tool with an output schema, it is largely complete.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description lists each parameter with clear explanations (e.g., 'The email ID to update', 'Microsoft account ID', 'Whether to mark as read (True) or unread (False)'), effectively compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 explicitly states the action 'Mark an email as read or unread' and identifies the resource (email), distinguishing itself from the sibling tool email_update by calling itself a simpler alternative for this specific purpose.

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?

The description provides clear guidance by positioning itself as a simpler alternative to email_update for marking read/unread, implying when to use it. It also mentions 'requires user confirmation recommended', but does not exhaustively cover when not to use it.

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