gmail_remove_attachment

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

The description explicitly states that only attachments change and body/subject/recipients are preserved, which is key behavioral context. With no annotations, this is valuable, though it doesn't cover error behavior or permissions.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy; first sentence gives core action, second clarifies side effects, third provides source for attachment_id. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. The description specifies the change scope and prerequisite, but could include error scenarios or scope requirements for a more complete picture.

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%, but the description adds meaning for attachment_id (source) and draft_id (implied), and partially for user_id (default only). It does not explain user_id's role or requirements.

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 verb 'remove' and the resource 'one file from a Gmail draft', and distinguishes it from siblings like 'gmail_add_attachment' and 'gmail_get_attachment'.

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?

It explains that the attachment_id comes from 'any prior draft response or gmail_get_draft', implying when to use, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references beyond the implicit distinction from add/get tools.

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