flag_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action and flags but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether adding the 'Deleted' flag moves the email), permission requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. The description is minimal but sufficient for basic understanding; a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides actionable guidance on flag values and actions. Every sentence is justified.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects. It does not describe return values (mutation tool) but that is reasonable. Optional parameters are documented in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing common flags and explaining the 'action' parameter semantically (use 'add' to set, 'remove' to clear). This goes beyond the schema's enum listing. It does not cover the optional 'folder' and 'account' parameters, but the schema descriptions suffice.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: adding or removing flags on an email. It lists common flags (Seen, Flagged, Answered, Deleted, Draft) which helps the agent understand the domain. The verb 'add/remove' combined with the resource 'email' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_email or read_email.

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 provides clear guidance on using 'add' versus 'remove' actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage. The brief instruction is adequate for a simple tool.

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