trash_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is reversible and requires a specific scope, but does not detail side effects (e.g., impact on labels, messages) or error conditions. This is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 that conveys the core purpose, reversibility, and requirement. It is concise and front-loaded with essential information, though it could potentially include more details without becoming overly long.

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 tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, reversibility, and authentication scope. While it lacks details on return behavior or error handling, it is fairly complete for a simple mutation tool given the context.

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% (only 'account' has a description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning for the parameters beyond what is in the schema. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving 'thread_id' unexplained.

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 thread to TRASH') and the specific resource (a thread). It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'untrash_thread' by mentioning reversibility, providing clear purpose.

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 mentions the required scope ('gmail.modify') and the reversible nature via 'untrash_thread', which helps in deciding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives for other operations.

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