gmail_mark_spam

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself — it does not mention reversibility, effect on future filtering, authentication requirements, or any side effects. With annotations carrying the burden, this minimal restatement earns only a low score.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple, one-parameter tool, though it borders on being too terse to provide any structure or nuance.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the rich schema coverage (100%) and destructive annotations provide enough structured context for an agent to call it correctly. However, the description itself adds nothing about what happens to the messages or any prerequisites, leaving a small gap for a mutation operation.

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 100%, and the parameter description ('Message ids (from gmail_search), up to 100') fully documents the sole input. The description provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Move') and resource ('messages') with a clear destination ('Spam'), so an agent can understand the core action without opening the schema. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like gmail_trash (move to Trash) or gmail_modify, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gmail_trash or gmail_modify. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or what conditions apply.

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