Dismiss inbox items you are not acting on (also marks the mail read in Gmail)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Inbox item ids to dismiss | |
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true after the user confirms dismissing these items and marking their mail read |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / confirmedAdded value: +{
+ "const": true,
+ "description": "Must be true after the user confirms dismissing these items and marking their mail read",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / ids / minItemsAdded value: +1Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "ids"
-]New value: +[
+ "ids",
+ "confirmed"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by disclosing the Gmail read-marking side effect and (through the confirmed parameter) the requirement for user confirmation. No contradictions with annotations.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and side effect. No wasted words; every part adds meaning.
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 high schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, when to use, and side effects. It does not explain the return value, but an output schema exists, so that is covered. The confirmation requirement is in the schema, and the description indirectly points to it.
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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (ids and confirmed), covering 100% of the semantics. The description reinforces the 'not acting on' context but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 action (dismiss), the resource (inbox items), and the context (items you are not acting on). It also distinguishes itself from similar tools like inbox.mark_read and inbox.acknowledge by explicitly noting the dismissal behavior and the Gmail read side effect.
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 phrase 'you are not acting on' provides implicit guidance on when to use the tool, implying it should be used when no further action is planned. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent away from sibling tools like inbox.acknowledge or inbox.decline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.