flag_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'set the follow-up flag,' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the flag is idempotent, reversible, requires permissions, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 short sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with three parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, behavioral details, and any guidance on integration with sibling operations, leaving the agent to guess.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, but it does not. The parameters mailbox, message_id, and include_raw are not described beyond their schema names/types. The agent has no additional meaning to decide how to fill them.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Set the follow-up flag on a message.' It distinguishes the core action but does not mention any sibling tools like unflag_message or batch_flag_messages, so it lacks differentiation. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unflag_message or batch_flag_messages. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without usage context.

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