m365_mail_mark_read

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already state (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It doesn't explain side effects, reversible nature, permission requirements, or whether the message must exist. With no added transparency, the description relies entirely on 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. No filler words or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential function. It doesn't mention return values, but none are defined in the schema, and the annotations provide safety context. A short statement about returning a success/failure could be added, but the current description is adequate for the simple 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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (messageId and isRead with True/False meanings). The description itself adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 an email as read or unread', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like m365_mail_read (which reads email content) and m365_mail_move/delete by specifying the exact state change.

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 usage is implied by the action (changing read/unread status), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools exist but no cross-references are provided.

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