gmail_untrash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the message is restored to the inbox), error conditions if the message is not in trash, or any reversibility details. The description is too minimal to inform the agent of potential state changes beyond the literal action.

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 that directly conveys the operation. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose but lacks critical context such as parameter usage, potential errors, and side effects. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is not fully complete, though it is adequate for a basic understanding.

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 one parameter, message_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, nor does it explain how to obtain it or what format it expects. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 function with a specific verb and resource ('Remove a Gmail message from the trash'). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like gmail_search or gmail_trash, though it is the inverse of gmail_trash. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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. It does not mention gmail_trash or other restore-like operations, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The usage context is merely implied by the tool name and description.

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