untrash_thread

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior, so the bar is lower. The description usefully clarifies that the operation acts on the thread's messages rather than the thread container itself, but says nothing about return values, partial-failure behavior, or what happens to messages not in Trash.

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 no filler; the action and resource come first. It is efficient, though it may be slightly too terse for a mutation 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and only one parameter, the description is close to adequate, but it omits where to obtain threadId and what state change to expect (e.g., thread no longer appears in trash listings). No output schema exists, so a short note on the effect would have helped.

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% and the single threadId parameter has no documented format or source (e.g., obtained from search_threads or get_thread). The description only implies the parameter by saying 'of a thread', leaving the agent to infer the identifier's origin and type.

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 out of Trash) and a specific resource (the messages of a thread), which distinguishes it from the sibling untrash_message. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as untrash_message for single messages. The restore-from-Trash scenario is only implied by the name and description.

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