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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds materially useful behavior: the operation is queued, it returns a requestId, it defaults to marking spam, and it updates existing records. This helps an agent understand asynchrony and outcome without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact sentence that leads with the action, then states the purpose, and finishes with the queued/requestId behavior. Every clause earns its place, and it is easy to scan.

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 description covers action, purpose, mutation effect, default flag behavior, queued execution, and the requestId return. With a fully described schema and no output schema, the main missing elements are minor (e.g., how to poll the request status), so it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameter descriptions already document all six fields. The description only adds the default behavior for isSpam (defaults to marking spam) and otherwise does not need to repeat parameter semantics, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 starts with a specific verb phrase, 'Mark or unmark a token as spam', and states the exact resource (a token) and the intended effect (excluding unwanted dust or airdrops from accounting and updating records). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 description gives a clear use context: marking unwanted dust or airdrops as spam so they are excluded from accounting, or unmarking a token. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not conditions, but no sibling appears to offer the same function, so clear contextual guidance is sufficient.

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