clear_email_flag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It clearly states the side effect (setting the flag to 'not flagged'), the return type (success confirmation), and an error condition (non-existent email ID). For a simple mutation tool, this is sufficient, though it does not mention permissions or reversibility, which are less critical for a straightforward flag-clearing operation.

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 three sentences, each adding necessary information: the core action, the equivalence to set_email_flag, and the return/error behavior. There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the expected behavior, success output, and error case. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could potentially mention whether the operation is idempotent or what happens if the flag is already clear, but those are minor omissions.

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 single parameter email_id is already well-documented in the schema, including its type, bounds, and example source (list_emails or search_emails). The description does not add significant semantic value beyond restating the parameter's purpose, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% 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?

The description clearly states the action (clear the follow-up flag), the resource (an email), and the resulting state (not flagged). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set_email_flag by explicitly noting it is a convenience shortcut for flag_status 0, making its purpose unique and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to clear a follow-up flag) and explicitly mentions it is a shortcut for set_email_flag, which helps the agent choose between the two. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where one should prefer the generic set_email_flag over this shortcut, which is a minor gap.

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