restore_emailsRestore deleted emails by moving selected messages out of the trash, supporting up to 100 message IDs per request.
Move messages out of the trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | No | Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected. | |
| messageIds | Yes | Messages to change, up to 100 IDs |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.0Input schema / properties / accountId / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / messageIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Messages to change, up to 100 distinct IDs"New value: +"Messages to change, up to 100 IDs"Input schema / properties / messageIds / items / maxLengthAdded value: +512Input schema / properties / messageIds / maxItemsAdded value: +100v0.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the source-state context ('out of the trash'); it does not say which folder messages are restored into, whether partial failures are reported, or any permission requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a mutating tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation that changes message location the description omits the destination folder semantics and error behavior for messages not in trash — the key facts an agent needs to use it correctly.
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 100%, so accountId (optional when one account is connected) and messageIds (up to 100 IDs) are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb ('move') and resource ('messages') plus the source state ('out of the trash'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling (trash_emails) or the near-neighbor (move_emails), leaving differentiation to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'out of the trash' — an agent can infer this applies to messages currently in trash, but there is no statement of prerequisites, when to prefer move_emails instead, or what happens to messages that are not in trash.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.