gmail_untrash

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 mentions a permission requirement ('full scope'), which is useful, but does not explain side effects, reversibility, idempotency, or behavior when the message is not in Trash. It is adequate for a simple restore but lacks depth.

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: the first states the purpose and the second adds a key requirement. There is no redundancy or filler, and information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential action and a critical prerequisite (full scope). It does not describe return values or edge cases, but the absence of an output schema and the simple nature of the operation make this acceptable.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions (account ID and message ID). The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 (schema does the heavy lifting) 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 ('Restore') and explicitly states the resource ('a Gmail message') and the action (moving from Trash back to the mailbox). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gmail_trash, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage through its purpose but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The phrase 'Requires full scope' gives a prerequisite, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over other label-modification tools or any contextual conditions.

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