mark_read

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the action. It does not disclose what happens to existing flags or the response format.

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 one sentence and concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks crucial information, making it minimal rather than efficiently comprehensive.

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 tool has multiple parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters affect behavior or what the output contains, leaving significant gaps.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (uid, folder, account). The agent must infer parameter semantics solely from names and types, which is insufficient.

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 'Add the \Seen flag' communicates that the tool marks an email as read, but it is vague and relies on technical jargon. While it distinguishes from mark_unread, it does not clearly state the effect in plain language.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mark_unread or star_email. The agent receives no context for selection.

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