mark_email_read

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the change is immediate, how it interacts with IMAP, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description does not enhance transparency.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant words. Every part is essential: the verb, the resource, and the state options. No fluff or unnecessary structure.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core action but could be slightly improved by noting the immediate effect on the email or the need for a connection. Still sufficient for a straightforward operation.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for 'emailId' (format) and 'isRead' (default and behavior). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the action ('mark') and the resource ('email') with the possible states ('read or unread'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'star_email', 'delete_email', and 'move_email' by focusing on the read status flag.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using 'get_emails' to check status, or 'star_email' for importance). It lacks any context about prerequisites (like connection state) or exclusions.

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