flag_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool modifies flags and supports add, remove, and update operations, with examples of flag values. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects, but the operation is clearly scoped to flag manipulation and is relatively low-risk.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then provides relevant examples. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 4 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and gives example flag values. It does not address error handling or return behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward flag operation. The schema and description together provide sufficient context for an agent to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples of flag values, but these are already included in the schema's flags parameter description. It does not materially enhance understanding of uid, action, or folder beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the tool's function with specific verbs: 'ekler, kaldırır veya günceller' (adds, removes, or updates) flags on an email. Concrete examples like starring ('\Flagged') and marking as read ('\Seen') remove ambiguity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as read_email or move_email.

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 implies usage: call this tool whenever you need to manage email flags, such as starring or marking as read/unread. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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