star_emailsStar messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | No | Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected. | |
| messageIds | Yes | Messages to change, up to 100 IDs |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "failed": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "messageId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "messageId",
+ "code"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "succeededIds": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "uncertainIds": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "action",
+ "succeededIds",
+ "failed",
+ "uncertainIds"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / accountId / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / messageIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Messages to change, up to 100 distinct IDs"New value: +"Messages to change, up to 100 IDs"Input schema / properties / messageIds / items / maxLengthAdded value: +512Input schema / properties / messageIds / maxItemsAdded value: +100Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / accountId / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / accountId / descriptionAdded value: +"Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected."Input schema / properties / accountId / maxLengthRemoved value: -512Input schema / properties / accountId / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / accountId / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / properties / messageIds / descriptionAdded value: +"Messages to change, up to 100 distinct IDs"Input schema / properties / messageIds / items / maxLengthRemoved value: -512Input schema / properties / messageIds / maxItemsRemoved value: -100Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation is non-destructive, idempotent, and writable, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action name. It does not explain what happens to already-starred messages, batching effects, or account-selection behavior.
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 definition is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It repeats the tool name without conveying any useful operational context.
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 mutation tool with siblings that perform inverse or related operations, the description is too thin. Although annotations and an output schema reduce the burden, the definition still omits when to use it and how it relates to unstar_emails or other message-state tools.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including limits and optional account selection. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3.
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 'Star messages' essentially restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It does not distinguish the action from close siblings such as unstar_emails, mark_emails_read, or archive_emails.
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 unstar_emails or other message-state tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.