trash_thread

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the 30-day retention window, the fact that Gmail permanently deletes afterwards, an explicit guarantee that this tool never hard-deletes or empties trash, and a 100-item batch cap. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before firing a mutation.

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-loaded with the action and the reversibility guarantee, followed by the boundary conditions, with an Args block that is genuinely necessary given zero schema coverage. The mid-sentence line break before 'After 30 days' slightly disrupts the flow but nothing is padded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers scope, limits, reversibility, and non-destructiveness. Minor gaps remain on edge cases such as trashing an already-trashed thread or partial failures within a 100-item list.

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 0% and the anyOf schema has no per-field documentation, so the description carries the load: it explains that threadId accepts either a single ID or a list, and the 'At most 100 items' constraint gives the list form a concrete bound. It lacks any ID format example, keeping it from a 5.

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 whole thread (or a list) to the trash' — including the batch capability. It implicitly distinguishes itself from trash_message by scoping to whole threads, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operating context: no confirmation needed, reversible for 30 days, and explicitly bounded ('never deletes for good nor empties the trash'). It routes to untrash_thread for reversal but does not state when to prefer trash_message over this tool for single messages.

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