Flag Email

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and safety (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context like the recommendation for user confirmation, return format note, and potential errors, going beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: one emoji-tagged purpose line, one comparative guidance line, and a clear Args/Returns/Raises block. Every sentence earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 simple tool nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers all bases: purpose, parameter semantics, behavior (user confirmation), sibling differentiation, and error handling. No gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, default value, and possible values for flag_status (listed as options). This adds meaning that the raw schema lacks.

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's purpose: 'Flag or unflag an email' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from sibling 'email_update' by positioning itself as a 'Simpler alternative for flagging emails,' making the unique purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs agents to use this tool for flagging when they would otherwise consider 'email_update,' and recommends user confirmation. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, but the comparison covers key usage context.

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