star_email

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond restating the action, so it meets a baseline but provides no extra value.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is highly concise with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 existence of 21 sibling tools and three parameters with no schema descriptions, this minimal description is insufficient. It lacks information about required parameters (uid), default folder, output, and how to use alongside other tools. Particularly missing is guidance on the effect of repeating the action or handling accounts.

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 fails to explain any of the three parameters (uid, folder, account). It adds zero meaning beyond the schema structure, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate inputs correctly.

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 'Add the \Flagged (starred) flag' clearly states the action and resource. It directly contrasts with the sibling 'unstar_email' which removes the flag, making the tool's 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unstar_email' or other email actions. The description lacks any context about recommended scenarios or prerequisites.

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