gmail_trash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: messages are retained for 30 days and can be recovered in Gmail. That recoverability detail meaningfully changes how an agent should reason about the operation. It stops short of describing batch/partial-failure behavior for the up-to-100 ids.

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 the core action front-loaded and the retention/recovery caveat correctly parenthesized as secondary detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key lifecycle fact (30-day auto-deletion, recoverable). Only minor operational details, such as behavior when some ids are invalid, are absent.

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%, and the schema already explains that ids come from gmail_search and cap at 100. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 messages to Trash'), making the operation unambiguous and distinct from read-oriented siblings like gmail_get_message or gmail_search. It does not, however, contrast itself with other mutation siblings such as gmail_modify or gmail_mark_spam, which could also affect message state.

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 guidance about when to prefer this over gmail_mark_spam (also a mailbox-state mutation) or gmail_modify, and no stated prerequisites or limits on batch size. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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