apple_mail_update_status

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

The description adds useful context by specifying the message is 'local' and by naming the exact status fields that can be modified. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, return values, or how partial updates behave. The annotations already provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds limited transparency beyond those.

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 of 14 words. It contains no filler and directly states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the function.

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 has 5 parameters, annotations, and no output schema. The description is sufficient to grasp the basic operation, but it lacks usage context, alternative guidance, and any indication of what the tool returns (e.g., updated message or success status). Given the mutation nature and absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps, making it minimally viable.

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 input schema describes 3 of 5 parameters (mailId, account, mailbox) but leaves isRead and isFlagged without descriptions. The tool description partially compensates by mentioning 'read/unread and/or flagged status', but it does not clarify boolean semantics (e.g., true means read) or that omitted fields leave status unchanged. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover the gaps.

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 the specific verb 'Modify' and identifies the resource ('local Apple Mail message') along with the affected attributes ('read/unread and/or flagged status'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like apple_mail_list, apple_mail_get, apple_mail_send, apple_mail_move, and apple_mail_delete.

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 implies usage for updating a message's status but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites like listing messages first to obtain a valid mailId, which the schema hints at but the description omits.

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