trash_thread

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

Annotations already cover safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds the key extra fact that this is a soft delete affecting all messages in the thread — consistent with destructiveHint=false. It stops short of stating recoverability or that thread metadata/labels persist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope ('every message of a thread') and semantics ('soft delete') are delivered immediately.

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 one-parameter soft-delete tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. A note on reversibility (via untrash_thread) and any effect on thread labels would close the remaining gap.

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?

Only one parameter (threadId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies the identifier refers to a thread rather than a message, but adds no format, source, or example for the ID.

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 ('Moves ... to Trash') and resource ('every message of a thread'), plus the 'soft delete' qualifier. The thread-level scope implicitly separates it from trash_message, though no sibling is named outright.

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 by the name and phrasing; the description never states when to prefer this over trash_message (single message) or how it relates to untrash_thread for reversal. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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