unstar_email

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if already unflagged). It merely restates the action without enhancing transparency beyond the 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 very short (one sentence), making it concise but insufficiently informative for a multi-parameter tool. It is front-loaded, but lacks structure or elaboration.

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 zero parameter coverage and no explanation of output or behavior, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It does not leverage the existing output schema or add needed context.

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 the parameters (uid, folder, account). No added meaning for any parameter, leaving the agent to rely solely on names and types.

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?

Description states 'Remove the \Flagged flag', which clearly indicates the action of unstarring an email, aligning with the tool name 'unstar_email'. It is a specific verb-resource pair, but could be more explicit about it being an email flag.

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, such as 'star_email' for starring. The description lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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