flag_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a toggle mutation but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what happens when 'flagged' is omitted and defaults to true. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 compact sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though being a single clause it front-loads nothing beyond the verb and resource.

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?

Although an output schema exists and needn't be re-explained, a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage needs more: default-value behavior and permission/scope context are missing, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that 'flagged' toggles state, but does not explain that the boolean defaults to true (i.e., omission means flag, not unflag) nor what message_id accepts.

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 names a specific verb pair (flag/unflag) and resource (meddelande/message) with the purpose 'för uppföljning' (for follow-up). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mark_read or move_message, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus mark_read or set_categories, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'för uppföljning' hints at intent but stops short of telling the agent when to select this tool.

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