trash_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the recoverability window ('recoverable for 30 days'), which is real behavioral context beyond the name, but says nothing about required scopes, whether labels are stripped, or whether the action triggers notifications.

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 action front-loaded and the retention caveat appended. Nothing is wasted and it is easy to scan.

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 such a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its reversibility, which is the key fact. It remains incomplete on parameter meaning and on how this differs from sibling mutation tools.

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% for both required parameters. The description alludes to 'a message' (message_id) but never mentions the required 'account' parameter or clarifies format/identity expectations, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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+resource ('Move a message to Trash'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling modify_labels, which could plausibly also remove a message from the inbox, so it falls short of 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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the verb, and nothing tells it why to prefer trash_email over modify_labels for removing a message.

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