gmail_threads_modify

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

The description explains the core behavior of adding/removing labels with examples, but since no annotations are provided, it should disclose more about side effects (e.g., need for authentication, reversibility). It does not cover permissions or edge cases like removing all labels.

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 very concise with three sentences, no redundant words, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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?

While the description covers the main function, it lacks details on return values (no output schema) and does not mention potential errors or permissions. For a simple label modification tool, it is mostly complete but could be improved.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds value by explaining the effect of specific label IDs (e.g., removing INBOX archives). This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 the verb 'modify' and resource 'Gmail thread', and specifies the action as adding/removing labels. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get and list by focusing on modification.

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 provides concrete usage examples (archive by removing INBOX, mark read by removing UNREAD, star by adding STARRED), which guide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives for other modifications.

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