Cambiar banderas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the mutation and safety profile. The description adds only a list of flag names, which duplicates the schema enum, and says nothing about permissions, how add and remove interact, or that 'deleted' is a flag rather than an actual deletion.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action ('Añade o quita banderas') and then lists the flags. It is efficient, though the parenthetical glosses for some flags are arguably redundant with the schema enum.

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?

The tool mutates IMAP flags across up to 50 message UIDs with four parameters and no output schema. The description omits when to use it versus siblings, how add and remove arrays combine, and what happens to unspecified flags, leaving significant context gaps despite the annotations covering idempotency and mutation.

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 75%, so the schema already documents the purpose of 'uids' and 'mailbox' (and the enum for 'add'/'remove'). The description gives Spanish glosses for the flag values but adds no syntax, constraints, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 states a specific verb (adds/removes) and resource (flags) and enumerates the available flags, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as delete_messages or move_messages, so it lacks the sibling-aware precision 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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like delete_messages or create_draft. It implies that the tool manages flags but leaves the agent to infer when to call it.

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