message_star

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Star the message' and offers no information about return values, side effects, prerequisites, or whether starring is idempotent. This is comparable to mutation tools with no annotation coverage that fail to describe behavior.

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 phrase, front-loaded with the action. There is zero fluff or redundancy. While it is under-specified, that deficiency is better captured in other dimensions; the brevity itself is appropriate for a simple 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?

This is a mutation-like tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a terse description. The description does not explain what happens after starring, whether identifying the message requires both chatId and messageId, or what the response contains. It falls short of being contextually complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (chatId, messageId, sessionId). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'Star the message'. The verb 'star' and resource 'message' are specific, and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like message_unstar. However, it lacks any additional scoping or context that would make it fully 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like message_unstar, message_react, and message_edit exist, but the description gives no hint about selecting this tool. It only restates the action without contextual use cases.

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