Marcar/desmarcar un correo para seguimiento

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, signaling a write operation. The description goes further by explicitly enumerating the three possible actions (set, complete, clear) and their outcomes, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema enum. It also clarifies the semantic equivalence to Outlook's flag feature. No contradictions with annotations.

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 that is highly efficient and directly to the point. It conveys the action, scope, and semantic reference without unnecessary elaboration. Both title and description are concise and well-structured.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description combined with the schema provides complete information. The tool's behavior is fully explained, and no additional context about return values or edge cases is needed. The Outlook analogy aids understanding for users familiar with email clients.

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%, with both parameters (itemId, status) having descriptive text and the status parameter including an enum with clear meanings. The description itself does not add parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully explains the parameters, so the description does not need to compensate.

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+resource structure: 'Pone, quita o completa la bandera de seguimiento' (sets, removes, or completes the follow-up flag). This clearly states the tool's function and is unique among siblings, as no other tool handles flags. The Outlook analogy provides additional concrete context.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to manage follow-up flags on emails. Since no sibling tool performs flag operations, the intended usage is unambiguous. However, it lacks explicit 'use this when' language or explicit exclusions, though these are not necessary given the tool's uniqueness.

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