manage_trash

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses safety limits (max_deletes, confirm_empty) and mentions return type. However, for destructive actions like delete_permanent and empty_trash, it does not explicitly warn of irreversibility or data loss, which is a notable gap.

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?

Description is adequately structured with Args and Returns, but is verbose with detailed parameter explanations. Could be more concise by grouping related parameters. The first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but overall length is justified given the parameter complexity.

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?

Covers all parameters and return type, but lacks logical constraints (e.g., which actions require which optional params) and example usage. Given 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is functional but not complete enough for seamless agent use without trial and error.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It effectively describes each parameter, listing allowed actions, conditional usage (e.g., subject_keyword not used for empty_trash), and safety roles. Lacks format details for account or action, but adds significant value beyond the 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?

Description clearly states it manages trash operations (delete emails or empty trash) with three specific actions. This differentiates it from siblings like delete_emails or archive_emails by focusing on trash lifecycle. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 38 siblings including delete_emails and move_email, the description does not clarify when to choose manage_trash over them. Safety parameters hint at usage context but are not stated explicitly.

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