flag-mio-messageSet important or mark-unread flags on an Omnivox MIO message to keep priority messages visible and track items needing a follow-up read.
Set flag indicators (important, mark_unread) on a MIO message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| important | Yes | Whether to flag the message as important | |
| message_id | Yes | The MIO message ID | |
| mark_unread | Yes | Whether to mark the message as unread (à relire) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is provided structurally. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond naming the flags, such as whether both booleans are required to be supplied and whether setting them overwrites existing flag state.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the operation. It is appropriately sized for a simple flag-setting tool.
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 schema fully documents the parameters and annotations provide the mutation safety profile, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, for a destructive flag-setting mutation, it omits important context such as the fact that both flags are required and that setting them may clear existing flags.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the two flag fields but adds no syntax, required-both behavior, or meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 action ("Set flag indicators") on a specific resource ("MIO message") and names the two flags being changed. It distinguishes the operation from siblings like read-mio-message or delete-mio-message, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move-mio-message, read-mio-message, or restore-mio-message. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word "Set".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.