Batch Update Messages

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful confirmation-gating requirement, but says nothing about partial success across a batch, per-message error reporting, or whether omitted fields are left untouched — all relevant for a 100-id bulk mutation with an output schema.

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 short sentences with the positive use case front-loaded and the exclusion second; nothing is padded or redundant. Every clause carries operational 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?

With annotations, a fully documented six-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description needs only to establish scope and gating, which it does. The one real gap is the unsupported folder-move claim, which could lead an agent to look for a folder parameter that does not exist.

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 every parameter (including the seen/flagged clear-vs-set semantics and keyword normalization) is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and its 'move to a folder' phrasing has no corresponding parameter, which is mildly misleading rather than helpful.

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?

States specific verbs (mark, flag, move, set keywords/labels) against a specific resource (multiple messages), which cleanly separates it from read-only siblings like qubrics_mailbox_batch_get_messages. The only weakness is that 'move to a folder' describes a capability the input schema does not expose, so the stated scope slightly overreaches the actual operation.

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?

Gives a real precondition ('after the user has confirmed the desired change') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it for read-only tasks'), which steers the agent to the batch-get sibling for reads. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead or of clarifying how it relates to qubrics_mailbox_batch_delete_messages.

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