confirm_junk_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core mutation (moves email to Junk folder), the success return (a message), and specific failure modes (invalid, expired, already used token; email changed). This provides substantial behavioral transparency beyond the schema, even if it doesn't address reversibility or permissions.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value (action, result, error conditions). No redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the prerequisite flow, the action's effect, the success return, and error conditions. The agent has enough context to invoke and interpret results without missing information.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning—it notes the token comes from prepare_junk_email and mentions 'email has changed' as an error, which indirectly clarifies email_id's role, but this mostly echoes existing schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Confirm and execute marking an email as junk' using a token from prepare_junk_email, and specifies the action 'Moves the email to the Junk folder.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling confirmation tools like confirm_delete_email or confirm_move_email.

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 clearly implies when to use: after prepare_junk_email has been called to obtain a token. It also warns about token validity and email-changed errors, setting expectations for preconditions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use' this tool, though the sibling context is similar.

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