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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it moves to trash and never permanently deletes, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like moving to trash might overwrite an existing trash folder entry or require specific permissions. The description aligns with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The key behavior (moves to trash, not permanent) is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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, the output schema absence is not a major gap. The description covers the main behavioral intent and safety. It lacks details on required permissions, but annotations already flag destructiveness. For a tool with this complexity, it's reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 67% on a 3-parameter schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, which already covers two parameters (uid and account). The folder parameter is described in the schema with defaults. The description's mention of 'Trash folder' implies the folder parameter, but it doesn't add new semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly states that the tool moves a message to the Trash folder and explicitly mentions it never permanently deletes. This distinguishes it from potential delete-type operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from modify_message or other siblings that might handle message states.

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 use for trashing messages without permanent deletion, which provides some context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this over other message manipulation tools like modify_message or when not to use it (e.g., if permanent deletion is desired).

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