gmail_batch_trash

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: operations are soft deletes, reversible via restore, require a reason, produce a single audit entry, and return per-item results. This meaningfully clarifies the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations.

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 short, front-loaded clauses with no wasted wording. The batch limit and reversibility appear immediately.

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 batch mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational facts: batch size, reversibility, required reason, audit behavior, and per-item results. It could still say more about partial failures or result shape.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 25-item limit, messages/threads, and required reason, but does not explain the type default or reason length constraints, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

States a specific batch operation and resource: soft-deleting up to 25 messages/threads in one call. The batch scope distinguishes it clearly from the single-item gmail_trash_message sibling.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use this for up to 25 items in one call, and a reason is required. It does not explicitly route single-item cases to gmail_trash_message or mention restore alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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