Flags setzen

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that flags are set or removed, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, reversibility, or behavior on invalid flags. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation 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?

The description is two short, information-dense sentences. The operation is stated first, and the common values are listed directly after, with no redundant repetition of schema details.

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 mutation with five well-documented parameters, the description plus schema covers most invocation needs. However, it does not state that at least one of add or remove should be provided, nor does it describe return or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating common flag values and their German meanings, which applies to both add and remove parameters and goes beyond the schema's single example.

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 first phrase 'Setzt oder entfernt IMAP-Flags' clearly names a specific action and resource. The common-value examples further clarify the intended domain and distinguish this tool from sibling mail operations like moving, reading, or searching.

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 examples ('gelesen', 'markiert', 'beantwortet') imply when the tool should be used, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or note any prerequisites. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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