Mark All Emails in Folder as Read

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes potential slowness for large folders, recommends confirmation, and specifies a ValueError for invalid folder_id. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, and the description aligns.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line summary followed by a short elaboration, then structured Args/Returns/Raises sections. 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 description covers behavior, parameters, return type, and errors. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (though not detailed here), it is fairly complete. Minor omission: no mention of whether the operation is all-or-nothing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: folder_id as the folder to mark and account_id as the Microsoft account. This adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states it marks all messages in a folder as read, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling email_mark_read tool which works on individual emails. The verb 'mark all' is specific, but lack of direct comparison reduces clarity.

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 mentions that the operation may take time and recommends user confirmation, but provides no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_mark_read. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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