gmail_trash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the message is moved to Trash, that it will be permanently deleted after 30 days, and that it requires full scope. This covers the most important side effects and permission requirements, though it does not mention reversibility or exact behavior if the message is already trashed.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes only essential details (destination, deletion policy, scope requirement). No wasted words.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with a clear action and side effects. The description covers what it does, the key consequence (permanent deletion), and an authentication requirement. Given the low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% for both parameters (accountId, messageId), and the schema descriptions are clear. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Move a Gmail message to Trash.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like gmail_archive, gmail_untrash, and gmail_mark_read_unread, and adds the key consequence of permanent deletion after 30 days.

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 implies the appropriate context: use when you want to move a message to Trash. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives (e.g., archive vs. trash, or untrash), but it clearly communicates the operation and the 30-day deletion window, giving the agent enough context to select it.

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