batch-unflag-messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the operation (removing flags), counts of success/failure, and id range. However, it omits details like idempotency, behavior for already unflagged messages, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a short 'do not use' note. It front-loads the purpose and usage conditions, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (batch operation, one parameter), the description covers when to use, alternatives, return info, and id source. It lacks parameter format details and error handling, but overall is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions ids range (1–100) and source, but does not explain the string format (e.g., digits or imap: prefix) or that the parameter is required. The simple schema partially mitigates, but the description should provide format guidance.

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 removes flags from multiple messages (1–100 ids) in one call. It distinguishes from siblings like unflag-message (single) and batch-flag-messages (adding flags), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' clauses with named alternatives (unflag-message, batch-flag-messages) provide clear context. Also advises obtaining ids from search-messages or list-messages first, offering a complete usage flow.

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