untrash_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine context by disclosing the resulting folder (Sent vs Inbox depending on whether the user was the sender), which annotations cannot express. It omits error behavior when the message is not in Trash, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentence with zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional outcome parenthetical kept tight.

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, non-destructive, idempotent restore operation with no output schema, the description covers the action and its outcome well enough to call correctly. The only real gap is the undocumented messageId, which is a parameter-semantics issue rather than a missing context.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of messageId, but it never mentions the parameter or its expected format. Only the phrase 'a message' hints at a single message identifier, leaving the sole parameter effectively undocumented across both sources.

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?

A specific verb ('Moves... out of Trash') plus an explicit state transition and destination logic, so an agent knows exactly what effect it has. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling untrash_thread by operating on a single message, though it never names that sibling.

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 implied by the name and the Trash reference — call it to restore a trashed message. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (the message must currently be in Trash) and no routing to untrash_thread or trash_message when the agent has the wrong operand.

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