flag_thread

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

Annotations only have destructiveHint: false. Description adds thread-level operation context but does not disclose potential partial failures, rate limits, or dependency on IMAP flag standards.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and key purpose, no wasted words.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, description omits essential details like flag syntax (e.g., \Seen), behavior of acrossFolders, and dryRun effect. Incomplete for effective use.

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?

Only messageId has schema description (20% coverage). Description does not explain meaning of flagsToAdd/flagsToRemove, acrossFolders, or dryRun beyond generic terms. 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 action (add/remove IMAP flags on all messages in a thread) and differentiates from sibling tools like update_message_flags (single message) or bulk_update_flags.

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 'Use to mark an entire conversation read, starred, etc. in one operation,' providing clear context for when to use; lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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