Connector: Gmail act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the action enumeration (which distinguishes destructive delete/archive/move from non-destructive create/send), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or per-action side effects.

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 no filler; the verb and resource come first. The parenthetical action list is somewhat redundant with the schema but does not bloat the text.

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 tool driving eight distinct actions through a free-form nested params object and with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain which params each action expects, nor what a call returns. The agent must infer per-action behavior from the schema alone.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's action list mirrors the action_type enum already in the schema, and it adds nothing about the nested 'params' object or how resource_id applies per action.

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 ('Execute a write action') on a specific resource (Gmail) and enumerates the action set, so the agent knows it is the mutation counterpart to gmail_search/gmail_fetch. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implied via 'write action' rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as connector_gmail_search or connector_gmail_fetch. The action list hints at use cases, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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