flag_thread

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, which is consistent. Description adds that flags can be added or removed, but doesn't detail other behavioral traits like rate limits, side effects, or behavior when flags already exist. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidelines. Highly concise.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides usage context but omits details on dryRun (test mode) and acrossFolders scope. Return value not mentioned, but for a flag-modification tool, that may be acceptable. Moderate completeness.

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 only 20% (only messageId has a description). The tool description does not explain dryRun, flagsToAdd, flagsToRemove, or acrossFolders. This leaves agents without crucial parameter context. Fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool adds or removes IMAP flags across all messages in a thread using the Message-ID header. Distinguishes itself from sibling apply_thread_action by specifying when to use each.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool when you have the raw Message-ID and want to flag an entire conversation, and to prefer apply_thread_action with specific actions when you have a local threadId. Provides clear decision guidance.

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