flag_message

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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the reversibility insight (flag/unflag), but offers no additional context about what flagging affects or any side effects. It does not contradict 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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and clear, but it is slightly under-specified for a tool with two parameters, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter usage guidance, when to choose this tool over siblings, and the impact or meaning of the flag status in the email 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly map the 'flagged' parameter to true/false or explain the 'message_id' requirement. While the boolean parameter is inferred, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verbs 'flag' and 'unflag' with the resource 'message', clearly conveying the action and its dual nature. This distinguishes it from sibling message operations like mark_read or delete_message.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as mark_read or move_message.

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