message-move-to-trash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the key disclosure that trashing is recoverable, which is useful context beyond the bare operation. It does not detail any permissions or side effects, but the behavior is simple and the recoverable note is the most important trait for an agent to know.

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 that conveys the action, object, and a behavior qualifier with zero waste. It is concise without losing necessary information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema description coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the action and key behavior, and the schema covers the parameter. A richer note about Gmail's trash retention period could add value but is not essential.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the single 'ids' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter-related meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Move'), a resource ('Gmail messages'), and a destination ('to trash'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like message-get, message-mark-read, label-add, and account tools, none of which involve trashing messages.

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 sets the context for use: this is the tool for moving Gmail messages into the trash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action is distinctive enough among the sibling tools that an agent can infer when to select it.

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