gmail_batchModify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the batch size limit but does not disclose that it is a mutating operation, potential partial failure behaviors, authorization needs, or what happens when both addLabelIds and removeLabelIds are specified.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary 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 simple batch mutation tool, the description plus schema is mostly adequate, but it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., handling invalid IDs, partial failures) and does not explicitly relate it to single-message gmail_modify. No output schema means the description should clarify expected return behavior, which it omits.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with reasonable descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 ('Bulk modify'), the resource ('Gmail messages'), the scope ('up to 1,000'), and the nature ('the same label changes'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gmail_modify and gmail_modifyThread by emphasizing the batch aspect.

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 'Bulk modify up to 1,000 Gmail messages at once' clearly implies this is for batch operations rather than single-message tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like gmail_modify for single messages or state when-not-to-use this tool.

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