Inxmail MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses: (1) write operation nature, (2) specific field being updated (read status), and (3) return value format (empty response). Minor gap: doesn't mention idempotency or error conditions.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), behavior (sentence 2), usage guideline (sentence 3), return value (sentence 4). Well front-loaded and appropriately sized for tool complexity.

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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter state-change tool. Compensates for missing output schema by explicitly stating 'Returns empty response on success.' Could improve by mentioning error handling or idempotency.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (errorLogId). Description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics, but with complete schema documentation, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Mark') + resource ('error log entry') + state ('read/acknowledged'). Distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like get_error_log (retrieval) and list_error_logs (listing).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'after reviewing an error via get_error_log to track which errors have been addressed.' Names the sibling tool (get_error_log) as the prerequisite step, establishing clear workflow sequencing.

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