trash_thread

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

The description reveals that trashed threads are recoverable for 30 days, which is useful transparency. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose important behaviors such as effects on labels, attachments, or cross-account implications beyond the multi-account statement.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the key information. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is destructive and has no output schema or usage context. The description omits details about return values, side effects, and prerequisites, leaving the agent under-informed for a simple but consequential operation.

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?

The input schema has 50% coverage (only 'account' has description; 'threadId' lacks one). The tool description adds no additional meaning for either parameter, failing to compensate for the missing schema detail.

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 a whole thread to Trash'), the resource ('thread'), and the scope ('Multi-account Gmail (all connected accounts)'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'trash_message' and 'archive_thread'.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trash_message'. The description lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.

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