Gmail: Untrash message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state, and the description adds a useful outcome detail ("restore to inbox") beyond the title. It says nothing about behavior when the message is not trashed, whether the original labels/location are preserved, required scopes, or any return value. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentence with the core action and effect front-loaded; nothing is padded. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds no meaning for an invoking agent but is a minor cost.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation with safety annotations present, the description is close to sufficient at a high level. It is still missing the meaning of "site" and any edge-case behavior (already-untrashed message, effect on labels), which matter for correct 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for both parameters, and it explains neither. In particular "site" is left completely undefined (which mail service/tenant?) and message_id format is not described. Baseline 3 would only apply if the schema already documented these fields.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Remove a message from trash") and clarifies the outcome with "(restore to inbox)", so the agent can tell this is the inverse of gmail_trash_message. The inverse relationship is implied rather than named, so it stops short of an explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the one-line purpose: no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the message must currently be in trash), no mention of gmail_trash_message as the opposite operation, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the workflow context entirely.

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