trash_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 30-day auto-delete retention window (the reversibility profile) and the success return shape including the TRASH label. It omits any permission/scope requirements or what happens if the message is already trashed, which keeps 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?

Content is front-loaded with the action, followed by behavior, arguments, return value, and a workflow note — a readable structure with no filler. There is a minor formatting blemish (a doubled closing brace on the return example) and a stray non-descriptive label, but nothing wasteful.

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 mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers action, side effect, argument source, and return shape — enough for correct invocation. Only the auth/permission surface and already-trashed edge case are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by naming the single required argument, its type, and its provenance ("Gmail message ID from list_emails"). That source hint meaningfully helps the agent obtain a valid value, though no format example is given.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Move an email to trash") and is clearly the single-message counterpart to the sibling trash_emails. It does not explicitly name that sibling or archive_email, so the differentiation is implied by the name rather than spelled out.

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 workflow note tells the agent when this tool is the intended path for permanent deletion: trash first, then Gmail auto-purges after 30 days. It gives no guidance on when to prefer archive_email over trashing, so the when-not side is missing, but the when-to-use context is concrete.

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