trash_message

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a 30-day reversible window, automatic permanent deletion after 30 days, an explicit statement that it never permanently deletes or empties the trash, and a 100-item cap. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before invoking a mutation, and they are consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the operation and the no-confirmation reassurance, then the reversibility window, then the hard limits. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 reversibility, the 30-day permanent-deletion horizon, the batch cap, and the negative guarantee about emptying trash; with an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required. Nothing an agent needs to safely call this is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the param: it documents messageId as 'message ID, or a list of IDs' matching the anyOf schema, and adds the 100-item bound that the schema does not express. It stops short of format specifics (e.g., what an ID looks like) or per-item error behavior.

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 and resource ('Move a message (or a list) to the trash') and clarifies scope via the 'message (or a list)' phrasing that implicitly contrasts with the sibling trash_thread. It never explicitly names that sibling, so an agent must infer the message-vs-thread distinction from the name alone.

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?

Explicitly reassures 'no confirmation needed' and names the reversal alternative (untrash_message), plus a clear exclusion: 'This tool never deletes for good nor empties the trash.' It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer trash_thread over this tool, leaving that to name inference.

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