gmail_important

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing. It doesn't say whether the change is reversible, whether it can be undone with gmail_undo, or what happens when no selection parameter is supplied despite zero required parameters.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, well front-loaded. It is efficient to the point of under-specification rather than being verbose.

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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin for the agent to call this correctly. At minimum it should explain the selection modes and the effect of marking conversations important.

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% and each parameter is already well documented, including the mutual-exclusion constraints for 'all'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark conversations as important'), so the agent knows the operation. It does not mention its direct inverse sibling gmail_not_important or gmail_star, leaving the distinction to be inferred.

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 versus gmail_not_important, gmail_star, or gmail_label. Nothing tells the agent how to pick a selection mode (index vs indexes vs match vs all vs query/folder), which is the main decision this tool requires.

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