mailplus_mark_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing that it modifies message state, that it is a batch operation, or any permissions/irreversibility aspects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and lists all possible actions. No extraneous words. Concise and to the point.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain that the tool operates on multiple messages, what happens if IDs are invalid, or what the tool returns. A more complete description would include batch behavior and success/failure feedback.

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 adds no meaning beyond the schema. The 'action' parameter is self-explanatory from its enum. The 'message_ids' array is not explained (e.g., format, batch capability). Only 'account' has a schema description, but the tool description does not mention it.

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 'MailPlus messages' and enumerates all possible states: read, unread, flagged, or unflagged. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailplus_get_message, mailplus_move_messages, etc.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing message IDs), batch operation context, or exclusion scenarios.

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