outlook_mark_as_read

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral details. It states the basic action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it triggers notifications), prerequisites (e.g., message must exist), or return behavior. Adequate for a simple toggle but minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every element is necessary and clear.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately conveys the core function. It could mention the response (e.g., success status) but is otherwise complete.

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?

Both parameters (messageId, isRead) have descriptions in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds little new meaning beyond 'mark as read or unread', which mirrors the isRead description. 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?

The description 'Mark an email as read or unread' clearly states the action (mark) and the resource (email) with a specific range of states (read/unread). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_email or flag_email, which have different purposes.

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, such as using outlook_get_email to check status first or which scenarios require marking as unread. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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