unmark_message_spam

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable mutation. The description adds the meaningful state change (Spam to Inbox), but does not say what happens if the message is not in Spam, whether failure is silent, or what is returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing to remove and nothing redundant.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only missing piece is edge-case behavior when the message is not currently in Spam.

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 a single required parameter, messageId, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries no additional format or semantics guidance. The parameter is self-evident for an email domain and does not require explanation, so this is adequate but unhelpful.

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?

States a specific verb (moves out of Spam) and resource (a message), and names the destination (Inbox). This cleanly distinguishes it from mark_message_spam (opposite direction) and unmark_thread_spam (thread-level).

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 implied usage (restore a spam-classified message to the Inbox) is inferable from the description, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus unmark_thread_spam or why one would choose the message-level over the thread-level variant. It also says nothing about preconditions, such as whether the message must currently be in Spam.

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