batch-unflag-messages

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns counts of success and failure, and implies the operation is a batch modification. However, it does not mention authorization requirements or potential side effects, which are minor omissions given the context.

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?

Four sentences, each with a clear purpose: usage condition, return value, exclusion conditions, prerequisite. No redundant information, front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 tool has one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema (implied by return counts), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral results, and prerequisite steps. It is complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 0% (description does not directly explain parameter 'ids'), but the schema itself provides detailed constraints (pattern, min/max items). The description adds indirect context by referencing IDs from search-messages, but does not elaborate on format or usage beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool removes flags from multiple messages in one call, specifies the count range (1-100 ids), and distinguishes from sibling tools like unflag-message (single) and batch-flag-messages (adding 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?

Explicitly provides 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, names alternatives (unflag-message, batch-flag-messages), and advises getting IDs from search-messages or list-messages first.

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