Remove the MCP/Done label from a Gmail thread to undo its marked-done state, restoring it to active tracking.
Remove the MCP/Done label from a thread (undo mark-done)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | ||
| thread_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unmarked_done | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action ('remove a label') but omits details like whether this is a permanent change, if it triggers any side effects (e.g., notifications), required permissions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.
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 12-word sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.
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?
The description is minimally adequate for a simple undo action, especially since an output schema exists (handling return values). However, it lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context, leaving gaps for an agent that could lead to incorrect usage or assumptions.
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%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does not mention 'thread_id' or 'user_id' at all, leaving the agent to infer that 'thread_id' identifies the thread. No additional context about format, defaults, or optionality is provided.
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 ('remove the MCP/Done label') and the resource ('from a thread'), and explicitly frames it as an undo action for mark-done, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gmail_mark_thread_done' and 'gmail_inbox.mark_done'. The verb 'remove' is specific and the scope is unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings, such as 'gmail_inbox.unmark_done'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or context for choosing among similar tools. The implied usage ('undo mark-done') is insufficient for an AI agent to make informed decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.