flag_message

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, whether unflagging an unflagged message errors, or what the call returns. The only behavioral detail given (id or ids, max 50) merely restates the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the input form; nothing is padded. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: no permission/auth notes, no result behavior, and no explanation of the required status values. An agent could invoke it, but would be guessing about effects and the meaning of 'complete' versus 'notFlagged'.

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 coverage is 67%, and the one undocumented element is the required 'status' enum (flagged/complete/notFlagged), whose semantics the description never explains. 'Accepts id or ids (up to 50)' duplicates what the schema already states via maxItems and the property description, adding no new meaning.

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 ('Set') and a specific resource attribute ('the follow-up flag status of a message'), which separates it from siblings like mark_read and move_message. It does not explicitly contrast itself with bulk_action, but the resource/attribute pairing is clear enough to select it.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus mark_read, bulk_action, or delete_message, and no guidance on which of the three statuses applies to which situation. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'follow-up flag'.

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