batch-flag-messages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavior: returns success/failure counts, the dual routing (AppleScript vs IMAP) for colors, and that ambiguous ids are refused rather than guessed. These are valuable behavioral details beyond the input schema.

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?

Each sentence earns its place. The text is structured into clear sections (use when, returns, do not use, note) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff or redundant content.

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?

Covers the full workflow: when to use, prerequisites (get ids first), parameter-specific guidance (sourceAccount/sourceMailbox pairing), the return format, edge case (ambiguous ids), and implementation detail (color applied on both routes). With output schema present, return values are well-covered; this description complements it fully.

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 coverage is high (75%) with descriptions for color, sourceAccount, and sourceMailbox. The description adds extra meaning by explaining why sourceMailbox/sourceAccount are needed (pinning numeric ids, ambiguity refusal) and clarifying the color behavior across both routes, surpassing the schema alone.

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 states the tool flags multiple messages (1–100 ids) in one call with an optional color. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming flag-message for single flags and batch-unflag-messages for removing flags.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' with named alternatives. It also instructs to get ids from search-messages or list-messages first and explains how to supply sourceMailbox/sourceAccount to disambiguate ids.

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