Flag Message

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

With no annotations beyond title, the description carries full responsibility. It reveals it is a write operation (flag/unflag) and mentions 'canonical id', but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, side effects, or response format.

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 with no fluff. However, it sacrifices important details that could be included without lengthening significantly.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or prerequisites. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably use without additional context.

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 0% and the description adds no information about the two parameters (flagged, message_id). The schema itself defines types and required status, but the description does not clarify their meaning or usage beyond what the schema provides.

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 the resource (Mail message by canonical id). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying a specific operation on messages, but does not elaborate on what flagging entails (e.g., setting importance).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mail_move_message or mail_delete. The context is implied by the tool name and description, but explicit comparison or usage conditions are missing.

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