mail_mark_read

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

The description discloses the basic behavior: marking messages read or unread by ID. However, without annotations, the description should also indicate whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The minimal description provides only the core action.

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 extremely short at 4 words, which is concise but sacrifices important details. It is front-loaded but lacks structure or elaboration.

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 two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to mark messages as unread, the required parameter, or any default behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 description does not add any meaning beyond the input schema. It fails to explain the 'read' boolean parameter or the meaning of 'message_ids'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'Mark' and resource 'messages read or unread by id', indicating the tool toggles read status. It is sufficiently specific but could be improved by explicitly separating 'read' and 'unread' states. It distinguishes it from other mail tools like archive or trash, but not from a hypothetical 'mark_unread' tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mail_trash_messages or mail_archive_messages. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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