flag_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior and reversibility through 'unflag', but omits side effects, idempotency, return value, account/auth requirements, and behavior when the flag is already in the requested state.

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 a single sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning; the parenthetical 'star' clarifies the terminology without adding bulk.

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?

All parameters are documented in the schema, and the operation is simple, so the description covers most of what an agent needs. However, the absence of an output schema, annotations, and usage guidance leaves minor gaps around return behavior, idempotency, and when to choose this over sibling tools.

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 the schema already documents id, account, and flagged clearly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('flag') and resource ('email'), and explicitly covers both directions ('flag/star' and 'unflag'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_read_status or move_email based on the operation name and semantics.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_read_status. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or scenario descriptions. The usage is only implicit from the operation name.

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