gmail_unmark_spam

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Audited', a genuinely behavioral detail not in annotations (the action is logged), but says nothing about permission requirements, reversibility, or whether unmarking spam affects message placement/inbox restoration.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the core effect and zero padding. It is terse but not wasteful; slightly more could be said without hurting structure.

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?

No output schema, 0% schema coverage, and an id/type pairing whose semantics are undefined — the description leaves the agent guessing about thread vs message targeting and about what happens to the message after unmarking. For a mutation tool this is a notable gap.

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% for two parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Critically, it never explains that 'id' is a message id by default but a thread id when type='thread' — a distinction the bare enum cannot convey.

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 and resource: 'Removes the SPAM label', plus the parenthetical '(not-spam)' clarifies the effect. An agent can tell this is the inverse of gmail_mark_spam from the name and description, though the description never references siblings 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?

No indication of when to use this versus gmail_mark_spam, gmail_restore_message, or label-modification tools like gmail_batch_modify_labels. The agent must infer the trigger condition (a message was mislabeled as spam) entirely on its own.

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