Move Email to Trash

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical info: labels are lost when moved, and requires confirmed=true. This clarifies the destructive nature and specific prerequisite. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a note, no wasted words. The key action is stated first, followed by important caveats. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers core action, wrapper relationship, label loss, and confirmation requirement. However, it omits guidance on the sourceFolder parameter, which is critical to avoid silent failures as described in the schema. Given output schema exists, return values are not needed, but this gap reduces completeness.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., confirmed and sourceFolder details are in schema). The undocumented emailId parameter is not addressed, missing an opportunity to clarify.

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 'Move an email to the Trash folder' and identifies it as a convenience wrapper for move_email, making the specific verb and resource unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_email and delete_email.

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 explains it is a convenience wrapper for move_email targeting Trash, implying when to use it. It also notes the label loss and the confirmed requirement, providing usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative operations like delete or archive.

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