manage_messages

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: which actions are immediate and reversible, which require preview plus human approval via elicitation or confirmation_token, and that trash moves messages to 已删除 without permanent deletion. This materially clarifies safety and workflow behavior for a destructiveHint=true tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core actions, followed by operational details. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 multi-action mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary operational context: action set, batch limit, immediate versus two-phase behavior, approval mechanism, and trash semantics. No critical invocation detail appears missing.

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 50%, and the description adds useful meaning for ids (≤50), action behavior, and confirmation_token's role in the two-phase flow. target_folder is only implicitly covered via the move action, so it does not fully compensate for every parameter gap.

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 specific verbs (move, trash, mark read/unread, flag/unflag) and the resource (up to 50 messages), making the tool's operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_messages or read_message, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It clearly explains that mark/flag actions run immediately while move/trash require a two-phase preview and human approval. This gives useful action-level usage context, though it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools like search_messages or get_thread.

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