trash_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the 30-day recoverability and multi-account support, which are useful. However, it does not mention idempotency, error states, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the multi-account context and the core action, making it highly efficient. Every word adds value, achieving perfect conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the format of messageId, nor does it guide the agent on distinguishing from sibling tools like trash_thread. Essential behavioral details like rate limits or permissions are absent, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 50% (account described, messageId not). The description does not explain what messageId is (e.g., a Gmail message ID) or its format, nor does it add meaning to account beyond what schema provides. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving ambiguity.

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 (move to Trash), the resource (a single message), and the context (multi-account Gmail). It explicitly mentions recoverability for 30 days, distinguishing it from archive or permanent delete. The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined, achieving high clarity.

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 usage for trashing individual messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like trash_thread (for threads) or archive_message. It lacks when-not guidance or explicit context for selection, though the sibling tool names provide indirect differentiation.

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