trash

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses recoverability duration, batch processing size (1000), query semantics ('acts on everything it matches'), and a safety guard that refuses empty/absent selections to prevent accidental full-mailbox trashing.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The core action and recoverability note are front-loaded, followed by selection semantics and the safety guard; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation concerns: selection modes, batch size, recoverability, and accidental-mass-trash protection. It leaves minor gaps around success/error responses and partial failures, but the core behavioral contract is complete enough for correct use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the selection can be a single id, a list of ids, or a Gmail query, and that a query matches everything. It stops short of explicitly stating mutual exclusivity among the selection parameters.

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 states a specific action (Move messages to Trash), a specific resource (messages), and a precise scope (a selection). It also distinguishes the operation from permanent deletion, which removes ambiguity even without an explicit sibling comparison.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to trash a selected set of messages while keeping them recoverable for 30 days. It also warns against using it for permanent deletion by emphasizing 'NOT a permanent delete,' though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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