gmail_inbox.mark_done

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it applies a label and hides from curated inbox. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden, but it lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the purpose and primary effect.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not provided), the description lacks usage guidance, parameter details, and differentiation from siblings. For a simple tool, it covers basic purpose but is incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (user_id, thread_id) with 0% description coverage. The tool description provides no additional meaning about these parameters, such as required format or allowed values. Baseline 3 is not applicable because schema coverage is low.

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 ('Mark a thread as done') and specifies the effect ('applies MCP/Done label, hides from curated inbox'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'gmail_mark_thread_done', which may have identical behavior.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'gmail_archive_thread', 'gmail_inbox.mark_read', or 'gmail_mark_thread_done'. The description implies usage for marking done and hiding, but no explicit when-not or alternatives.

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