Move messages to Trash (two-phase)

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: Gmail retains messages for 30 days and users can restore them. It also clarifies that permanent deletion is not possible by design, which is meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds value: the 30-day retention, user restore capability, and the explicit absence of a permanent-delete tool. No wasted words.

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 explains the tool's purpose and safety model well, especially given the destructiveHint. However, it omits any explanation of the 'confirm_token' parameter and the 'two-phase' nature hinted at in the title, which is a gap for agents needing to invoke the tool correctly. Output schema absence is acceptable since this is an action tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'account', 'message_ids', or 'confirm_token' parameters. It only implies that 'messages' are moved, which barely covers 'message_ids'. It does not mention the two-phase confirmation aspect or what 'confirm_token' means, leaving the agent without crucial parameter semantics.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Move messages to Trash'. It is clearly distinct from siblings like 'modify_labels' or 'search'. The title adds 'two-phase', giving further specificity about the operation.

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 states that Trash is where messages go and that no permanent-delete tool exists, implying this is the appropriate tool for deletion-like actions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for a straightforward operation.

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