Mark as spam

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by noting 'special-use aware', which informs the agent that the tool handles special mailbox semantics. This is beyond what annotations provide.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No superfluous information.

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 the presence of annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details about return values (no output schema) and the exact behavior of 'special-use aware', which could be important for edge cases. Still, it is sufficient for basic use.

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 schema description coverage at only 33%, the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters (uid, folder, server). The schema itself lacks descriptions for uid and folder, and the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter 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 action ('Move an email') and the target ('spam/junk folder'), and includes 'special-use aware' which adds context. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like email_move or email_delete by specifying the spam specific folder.

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 implies the tool is used for reporting spam but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like email_move or email_flag. There are no exclusions or comparisons to other tools.

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