Trash or restore mail

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

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: trash is reversible for about 30 days before permanent deletion, target=thread acts on every message in the thread, untrash does not re-add INBOX, and the server deliberately has no permanent-delete tool. These are precisely the behavioral facts an agent needs to avoid irreversible mistakes and to reason about side effects. No contradiction 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?

Four sentences, all information-dense and non-redundant. The core action is front-loaded, followed by reversibility, target semantics, server policy, and the INBOX follow-up. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive-but-reversible mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential calling considerations: required parameters, target modes, reversibility window, permanent deletion caveat, and the needed follow-up to restore INBOX presence. Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough context to call this tool safely and 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the 30-day retention meaning of action=trash, the thread-wide effect of target=thread, the default target=message, and the INBOX caveat for untrash. These details transform the enum values into actionable behavior.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Moves a message or a whole thread to the Gmail trash, or restores it.' This is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_message, manage_labels, and delete_draft. The title and description are aligned and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: trashing/untrashing mail or threads, with no permanent-delete alternative intentionally available. It also warns that untrash does not re-add INBOX and directs the agent to follow up with modify_message archived=false when inbox restoration is needed. This is clear routing guidance beyond the schema.

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