Flag email

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations show, such as side effects, permissions, or error cases. It does not contradict annotations but offers no additional transparency.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters briefly) without losing conciseness. It is efficient but minimal.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations with minimal context, the description is too brief. It does not explain the required 'uid' parameter, the role of 'folder' or 'server', or the return value. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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 50% (only 'server' and 'flagged' have descriptions). The tool description itself does not add any parameter explanations; it repeats the simple 'flag/unflag' semantics already in the schema. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions for 'uid' and 'folder'.

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 action (flag or unflag) and resource (email) with synonyms (star/unstar). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like email_mark_read or email_mark_spam, though the verb 'flag' distinctively conveys starring.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as email_mark_read or email_archive. It merely states the action without context for selection.

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