emails_modify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It explains basic state changes but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior with conflicting flags (e.g., mark_read=true and mark_unread=true together). It is not misleading, but lacks depth for a tool with multiple conditional actions.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then give practical use cases. There is no wasted text or redundancy. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters with potential conflicts and no output schema or annotations. The description does not address edge cases such as mutually exclusive flags or the effect of moving an email out of a folder. While the schema covers parameters, the behavioral context is partially incomplete for a moderately complex modification tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description gives general usage examples but no syntax or parameter-specific clarifications.

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 function: 'Change email states like read/unread, flagged, or move between folders.' It uses a specific verb ('change') and resource ('email states') and lists concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like emails_find (search), email_send (send), and email_respond (reply), which handle different operations.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: 'Use this to organize your inbox, mark emails as read, archive messages, or flag important emails.' This implies appropriate scenarios without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling set, the use cases are clear enough.

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