zoho_mark_emails_spam

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the concrete side effect (relocation to the Spam folder) rather than merely restating the name. It stops short of documenting reversibility, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its effect, followed by the targeting rule. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, side effect, and targeting adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is slightly short on the folderId/isFolderSpecific relationship, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the schema does part of the work. The description adds a meaningful non-schema constraint by clarifying that messageId and threadId are mutually exclusive ('give one of the two'). It says nothing, however, about folderId or isFolderSpecific, whose interaction ('then folderId is required') is left entirely to 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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Mark emails as spam') and immediately clarifies the concrete effect ('moves them to the Spam folder'). The scope note that it targets either individual messages (messageId) or whole conversations (threadId) helps separate it from thread-only siblings like zoho_mark_threads_spam and from zoho_mark_emails_not_spam.

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?

The description gives clear context for invocation in two modes and adds a constraint ('give one of the two') that guides parameter choice. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent against alternatives such as zoho_mark_emails_not_spam, zoho_move_emails, or the thread-specific sibling, so exclusions are absent.

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