Gmail: Remove label

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the useful detail that labels may be referenced either by well-known name or by user label id, but says nothing about what happens when a label is absent from the message, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions/account scope ('site') is involved.

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 that opens with the action and resource before the examples. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix carries little meaning for an agent, but the rest of the wording earns its place.

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 destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does and how labels may be specified, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves the required 'site' parameter and the post-removal state unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete.

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% across all three parameters, so the description must carry the load. It partially does for label_ids, clarifying that names like STARRED/INBOX and user label ids are both acceptable, and implies message_id. However the required 'site' parameter is never mentioned and no format is given for message_id, leaving a real gap for a 3/3-required tool.

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 ('Remove one or more labels from a message') and enumerates example label values (STARRED, INBOX, user label id), so an agent can tell this apart from gmail_add_label by polarity alone. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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 parenthetical supplies concrete use cases — removing STARRED to unstar, removing INBOX to archive — which implies when to reach for this tool. It gives no explicit exclusions or pointer to the inverse operation (gmail_add_label) for undo, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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