batch_mark_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the basic mutation action and does not cover partial-failure behavior, response shape, reversibility, or mailbox-scoping effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though brevity comes at the cost of useful detail captured in other dimensions.

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?

For a batch operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits mailbox semantics, acknowledgment/return behavior, and batch edge cases. It communicates intent but not enough for an agent to call it with full confidence.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. 'A list of messages' maps reasonably to message_ids, but the mailbox parameter is entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Mark'), a clear resource ('messages'), and a batch/list scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mark_read (single message) and batch_mark_unread (opposite direction).

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 phrase 'a list' implies a batch use case and sibling names suggest single-message alternatives, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over mark_read or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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