unstar_emailsRemove stars from up to 100 email messages by ID, optionally specifying the connected account, to clear their starred status.
Remove the star from messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | No | Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected. | |
| messageIds | Yes | Messages to change, up to 100 IDs |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.0Input schema / properties / accountId / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / messageIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Messages to change, up to 100 distinct IDs"New value: +"Messages to change, up to 100 IDs"Input schema / properties / messageIds / items / maxLengthAdded value: +512Input schema / properties / messageIds / maxItemsAdded value: +100v0.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation. It does not mention batch scope, account behavior, or any caveats beyond what structured fields provide.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple toggle operation, though it could include a brief routing hint without sacrificing 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?
The tool is simple, the schema fully documents its parameters, annotations cover safety traits, and an output schema exists. However, the description omits useful context such as the batch limit and the relationship to star_emails, leaving it only minimally complete.
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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this burden.
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 and resource: 'Remove the star from messages.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from star_emails by the opposite action, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus star_emails or other message-modification tools. The operation is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.