mail_status

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

The description discloses atomic write and audit entry behavior, and states that the tool validates state-machine transitions. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations (which are absent) would provide. It is clear about the operation being a state change with constraints.

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 concise at two sentences, with the core action in the first sentence. It efficiently conveys the state-machine validation and atomic/audit behavior without unnecessary words.

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 complexity (4 required parameters with enums, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It omits parameter details and does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a success indicator or updated mail object). The state-machine info is helpful but insufficient for full invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any parameters. The status parameter's allowed transitions are implied but not explicitly linked. The agent and folder parameters are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 verb 'change' and the resource 'mail's status'. It explains the state-machine validation and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools focused on reading, listing, migrating, replying, sending, or threading mails.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mail_reply might also change status). The description implies it is for status updates but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools.

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