update_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what can be updated ('read/unread, flag/unflag') but does not explain side effects, required permissions, whether both properties can be set in a single call, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action 'Update email properties', followed by specific examples. There is no fluff, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to cover more context. It omits the full flag status range, whether isRead and flagStatus can be set independently or together, and any information about the response or side effects. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description's phrase 'flag/unflag' is misleading because the schema includes a third enum value 'Complete'. This under-represents the flagStatus parameter and could cause an agent to believe only two states are possible. Thus, the description detracts from parameter clarity.

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 identifies the tool as updating email properties, specifically read/unread and flag status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_email and delete_email. However, it does not mention the 'Complete' flag status option, which slightly limits the clarity of the full purpose.

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 usage is implied by the examples: if you need to mark an email read/unread or flag/unflag, this is the tool. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_email or update_draft, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This makes it minimally adequate.

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