unstar_emailsRemove the star from 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no context beyond the annotation layer—no note on reversibility, what happens to already-unstarred messages, or failure behavior for bad IDs.
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 waste. It is efficient, though so sparse that it borders on under-specified rather than well-structured.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and rich annotations covering idempotency and safety, so the description needs less. Still, it provides no routing to the inverse sibling or mention of batch limits, leaving the definition minimal but adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both accountId (optional when one account) and messageIds (up to 100). The description adds nothing beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb+resource ('remove the star from messages'), which an agent can distinguish from the inverse sibling 'star_emails'. However, it never names that sibling or scopes which messages can be affected, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 versus star_emails, archive_emails, trash_emails, or other state-changing siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as account context or message state. The title alone hints at the inverse relationship.
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.