Restore email from trash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation without explaining what happens to labels, whether the action is reversible, or what authentication/account considerations apply. It does at least indicate a state-changing action, so it is not completely opaque.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant words. The key information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no annotations, it lacks important contextual guidance such as edge-case behavior for already-untrashed messages, account requirements, or what the agent should expect after the call.

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 fully describes both parameters ('id' as Message ID and 'account' as Account nickname), giving baseline 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema already provides.

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 action ('Restore'), a precise object ('a message'), and the source ('from trash'). This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes the tool from its inverse sibling google_gmail_trash and from permanent deletion operations like google_gmail_delete.

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 implies the message must currently be in the trash, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as google_gmail_trash or google_gmail_delete. Usage context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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