gmail_inbox.unmark_done

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies mutation but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema is not utilized to clarify return values.

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 very short, consisting of a single phrase. While it is concise and front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness. Every word earns its place, but it omits important details that could be included without verbosity.

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 is a simple undo action and an output schema exists (though not provided in the input), the description should still mention error conditions, authentication needs, or return value overview. It currently lacks contextual completeness for confident use.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions are in the schema, and the description adds none either. It does not explain the purpose of 'user_id' or the format of 'thread_id'. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Remove the done marker from a thread (undo mark-done).' It identifies a specific action on a specific resource. However, there is a sibling named 'gmail_unmark_thread_done' with an identical name and purpose, which could cause confusion.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gmail_unmark_thread_done' or 'gmail_inbox.mark_done'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or typical contexts.

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