mark_not_important

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

No annotations are present. The description does not disclose the effects of marking a message as not important, reversibility, or the role of parameters like 'account' and 'password'. The behavior beyond the nominal action is opaque.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits critical context, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite its conciseness.

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 presence of a 'password' parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the full context of the operation, security implications, or the meaning of the parameters beyond naming.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain what 'account' and 'password' represent or how they affect the operation, leaving the agent uninformed about these fields.

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 'Mark a message as not important' clearly states the action (mark) and the resource (message) with a specific state change. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'mark_important' (inverse) and 'mark_read'/'mark_unread' (different attribute).

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 such as 'mark_important', 'star', or 'label_message'. There is no context about prerequisites or suitability.

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