trash_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior of 30-day recoverability, which is useful. However, it does not mention authorization requirements (e.g., OAuth scopes), side effects (e.g., labels removed), or that the email is still accessible via search. The 30-day note adds value, but additional context would improve transparency.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the core action. No filler, no redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding. Perfect conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context: action, resource, and recovery window. It does not need to explain return values. Sibling tools cover batch and reverse operations. Completeness is high for this scope.

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 only parameter is 'id' with schema description 'Gmail message ID'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The tool description does not elaborate on the format or source of the ID. Baseline of 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 'Move an email to Trash (recoverable for 30 days)' clearly states the verb (move), resource (email), and destination (Trash). It also specifies the recovery period, which distinguishes it from permanent deletion. The tool name 'trash_email' aligns with siblings like 'batch_trash_emails' and 'untrash_email', so purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage: you have a single email to move to trash. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'batch_trash_emails' (for multiple emails) or 'untrash_email' (to reverse). No context about prerequisites or permissions is provided, so guidance is only implied.

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