Trash Gmail message or thread

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the action is recoverable for ~30 days, can be restored from Trash, and that nothing is permanently deleted. It also describes return values and error behavior, giving the agent a full picture of what happens when invoked.

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 well-structured with a leading purpose sentence, a highlighted recoverability note, a compact Args section, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling. Every section earns its place, and the most critical information (purpose and recoverability) is front-loaded.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, parameters, return value, examples, and error handling. It even addresses a common pitfall (id/account mismatch) with a concrete 404 explanation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 is empty, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It clearly specifies that exactly one of message_id or thread_id is required, defines ids as account-specific, and explains the optional account parameter. Examples demonstrate valid payloads, fully covering parameter semantics despite the empty schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Move one message or one whole thread to Trash.' It also clarifies scope (one message or whole thread), which differentiates it from sibling tools like gmail_modify_labels or gmail_send_message. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct.

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 clear context: trashing is recoverable and not permanent, and it explains the required message_id/thread_id pattern. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternative siblings, but the intended use is obvious and no exclusions are needed for this specific action.

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