update_email_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses safety limits (max_updates), apply_to_all requirement, and behavior with message_ids. However, it does not discuss permissions or side effects of updating status.

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 well-structured with a header, Args list, and Returns note. It is slightly lengthy (11 lines) but front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value except possibly the user preferences line.

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 output schema exists, the description covers return values briefly. It includes behavioral details like safety limits and filtering logic. Missing error handling or prerequisites, but adequate for a moderately complex mutation tool.

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 0%, but the description includes an explicit Args section explaining each parameter, its type, and default values. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool updates email status with specific actions (mark read/unread, flag/unflag). It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings by listing explicit actions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mark_emails or delete_emails. The description does not provide context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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