zoho_mark_emails_not_spam

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorld=true. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the email is moved out of the spam folder, whether the action is idempotent, what happens if the message was never spam, or what the response contains. For a state-mutating tool this is thin.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the targeting rule immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It covers targeting adequately but leaves folder behavior, side effects and failure modes unaddressed.

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 50%, and the description compensates partially by stating that messageId and threadId are mutually exclusive alternatives. It says nothing about folderId or isFolderSpecific, so half the parameters rely entirely on the schema. The one-of constraint is the main added value.

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+resource ("Mark emails as not spam") and clarifies the two targeting modes, messageId vs threadId. It implicitly separates itself from zoho_mark_emails_spam and zoho_mark_threads_not_spam by describing both email- and conversation-level targeting, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Give one of the two" is a useful exclusivity constraint, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over zoho_mark_threads_not_spam or zoho_mark_emails_spam, nor any prerequisite context (e.g. that the email must currently be in spam). Usage is only partially implied.

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