gmail_trash_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is a soft delete into Trash, not permanent removal, which is important because 'destructive' could otherwise suggest irreversible deletion.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with an important safety clarification. No wasted text.

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 mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and reversibility. It is slightly incomplete on parameter semantics and sibling routing, but an agent can still call it correctly given the schema.

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 only 33%: the 'reason' parameter is documented, but 'id' has no description and 'type' has only an enum/default. The tool description does not explain the id format, the message-vs-thread distinction, or the mandatory nature of reason, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (soft-deletes/moves to Trash) and resource (Gmail message or thread), and rules out permanent deletion. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling batch operations such as gmail_batch_trash or restore flows.

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 implies this is the deletion path by noting permanent delete is unavailable, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives for bulk operations, and no mention of restore behavior.

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