flag_emails

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

No annotations are provided. The description describes a mutation operation ('flag') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as reversibility, whether previous flags are affected, or any rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, the description should provide more context.

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: first defines the action, second explains a key property of UIDs. Very concise and front-loaded with no unnecessary information.

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?

The tool is simple with two straightforward parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action and UID usage, but lacks details on cross-folder behavior or interaction with sibling tools like marking as read. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a note about UIDs being permanent identifiers, reinforcing the 'uids' parameter's significance, but adds no further meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Flag emails as important/starred') and the resource ('emails'). It specifies using UIDs, which are permanent identifiers, distinguishing it from other tools like unflag_emails.

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 implies using UIDs for reliable flagging ('UIDs are permanent identifiers'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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