imap_flag_email

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a state-changing operation ('sets the IMAP \Flagged system flag') and explains what that means visually in common clients. It does not mention idempotency, reversibility, or response behavior, but the core side effect is transparent.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action and system-flag detail are front-loaded, followed immediately by the exact user intents that should trigger the tool.

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 simple flag-setting operation with fully documented parameters, the description provides purpose, effect, and when-to-use guidance. It does not describe operation confirmation or error behavior, but that is not essential for an agent to select and invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters, which is acceptable because the schema fully covers them.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Flag an email') and precisely defines the action as setting the IMAP \Flagged system flag. It explains the user-visible results (star in Gmail, flag in Apple Mail) and differentiates from related operations by focusing on the system flag rather than read status or keywords.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when a user asks to star, flag, or mark a message as important,' providing clear triggering intent. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like imap_unflag_email or imap_add_keyword, so it stops short of a full exclusion list.

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