Move an email to the bin

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant behavior beyond that: it is not permanent, the message stays existing, untrash_email can restore it, Gmail auto-empties after 30 days, and a wrong ID is visible in the response. This gives the agent a much richer model of the tool's side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds only high-value caveats: reversibility, the 30-day limit, absence of permanent delete, and response feedback. No sentence is wasted, and the structure 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 a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what the tool does, its side effects, how to undo it, and what to look for in the response. It also addresses the relevant sibling untrash_email and the lack of a permanent-delete alternative.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Configured account' and 'Message to move to the bin'). The description adds little beyond naming the bin, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Move a message to the bin.' It distinguishes this from a permanent delete and from recovery via untrash_email, so an agent can immediately tell what the tool is for and how it differs from related actions.

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 makes the usage context clear by explaining that this is reversible for 30 days and that no permanent-delete tool exists. It doesn't literally say 'use this when you want to soft-delete and use untrash_email to undo,' but that is strongly implied by the contrast with untrash_email and the warning about Gmail's 30-day emptying.

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