pin_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the email_id format but does not describe side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. The action implies a state change, but additional behavioral context is absent.

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 that front-loads the action and immediately provides the parameter format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the core action and the key parameter requirement, but lacks usage context and alternative routing, leaving a minor gap for an agent deciding between this and similar 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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds the critical format 'folder:uid' with anexample 'INBOX:1', which is essential for correct invocation. This fully compensates for the schema's bare string type definition for the sole parameter.

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 clear action, '置顶/星标邮件' (pin/star email), and identifies the resource. The verb and object are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like set_flag, which could perform a similar star operation, so it is not fully distinctive.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_flag or other email management tools. The description only provides the action and parameter format, with no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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