unflag-message

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

The description mentions that the tool returns a confirmation, which adds some behavioral context. However, with no annotations present, it does not disclose what happens when the message is already unflagged, whether the operation is idempotent, or any error conditions. This leaves some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary usage condition. Every sentence adds value: use case, return value, exclusions, and id sourcing. No redundant or filler 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential guidance: when to use, when not to use, how to obtain the parameter, and what to expect as a return value. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the single parameter 'id' by saying 'by id' and instructs the user to get the id from search-messages or list-messages first. This provides practical guidance beyond the raw schema pattern and helps the agent understand the param's provenance.

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 verb ('removing'), the resource ('flag from a single message'), and the scope ('by id'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by specifying 'single' versus batch operations and removal versus adding a 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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections directly state the appropriate usage and name alternatives (batch-unflag-messages, flag-message). Additionally, it tells the user to obtain the id via search-messages or list-messages first, providing clear operational context.

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