gmail_restore_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that this is an untrash (a reversal, hence idempotent and non-destructive), but it does not say what happens on error (e.g., item not in Trash) or where labels/state are restored to.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and source location 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 two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior and id-type coupling, which are minor here.

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 carries the burden. 'message or thread from Trash' hints at the `type` enum and the corresponding meaning of `id`, but it never states that `id` must be a message ID when type=message and a thread ID when type=thread.

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 verb (restores), resource (Gmail message or thread), and scope (from Trash), plus the underlying mechanism (untrash). It is effectively the inverse of gmail_trash_message, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain: use it to bring back something that was trashed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of what to do if the item is not in Trash, and no guidance on choosing between restoring a message vs a whole thread.

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