trash_emailsMove messages to the trash, where they can be restored until the provider empties it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | No | Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected. | |
| messageIds | Yes | Messages to change, up to 100 IDs |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "failed": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "messageId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "messageId",
+ "code"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "succeededIds": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "uncertainIds": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "action",
+ "succeededIds",
+ "failed",
+ "uncertainIds"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / accountId / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / messageIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Messages to change, up to 100 distinct IDs"New value: +"Messages to change, up to 100 IDs"Input schema / properties / messageIds / items / maxLengthAdded value: +512Input schema / properties / messageIds / maxItemsAdded value: +100Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / accountId / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / accountId / descriptionAdded value: +"Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected."Input schema / properties / accountId / maxLengthRemoved value: -512Input schema / properties / accountId / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / accountId / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / properties / messageIds / descriptionAdded value: +"Messages to change, up to 100 distinct IDs"Input schema / properties / messageIds / items / maxLengthRemoved value: -512Input schema / properties / messageIds / maxItemsRemoved value: -100Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding the genuinely non-structured detail that trashing is reversible until the provider purges the trash, which tells the agent this is a recoverable mutation rather than a permanent one.
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?
One sentence with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the qualifying restoration clause follows it. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description need not explain return values. It is complete for a simple two-parameter mutation, though it could have mentioned behavior on partial/invalid IDs given the 100-item batch limit.
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% and both parameters are documented there, including the 100-ID cap and the single-account default for accountId. The description adds no syntax, batching, or partial-failure semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Move') and destination resource ('trash'), plus the key property that messages land in a restorable state. It never names the sibling it is distinguished from (archive_emails, move_emails, restore_emails), so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'where they can be restored until the provider empties it' hints that this is the reversible removal choice versus a permanent delete, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to archive_emails or move_emails as alternatives for users who want to keep messages out of the inbox without trashing them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.