mark_thread_spam

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety/repeatability is covered structurally. The description adds useful scope context ('every message' of the thread), but says nothing about whether the thread disappears from the inbox, who can perform it, or what happens to already-spammed messages.

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 tight sentence with the action and destination front-loaded and zero filler.

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 one-param action tool with no output schema and annotations carrying the idempotency/safety profile, the description covers the essential behavior. Minor gaps (return value, inbox removal semantics) keep it from a 5.

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?

There is one parameter (threadId) with 0% schema description coverage; the description refers to 'a thread' which lightly implies the parameter, but never confirms it accepts a thread ID or any format. Given the single self-evident parameter, this is adequate but adds little.

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?

A specific verb ('Moves') plus resource ('every message of a thread') and destination ('Spam folder'). The thread-level scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling mark_message_spam, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope wording: the agent can infer it should use this over mark_message_spam when a whole thread is spam. There is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative.

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