unlabel_message

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses reversibility, that no confirmation is needed, and a concrete call limit: "at most 100 items per call." These details materially help an agent invoke the mutation safely and understand its idempotent, non-destructive nature.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by compact semantics, exclusions, and argument notes. Despite covering several important cases, it avoids unnecessary repetition and every section adds actionable context.

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 mutation behavior, multiple accepted label formats, batch capability, and sibling tools, the description covers the information an agent needs to invoke it correctly. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: messageId may be a single ID or list, and labelIds are "labels to remove (IDs or names)." It further defines accepted label forms as system IDs, user label IDs from list_labels, or exact names.

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 verb and resource: "Remove labels from a message (or from a list of messages)." It also distinguishes the operation from related siblings by naming label IDs, system labels, and examples such as archive/unread/star, while directing trash actions to trash_* tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use mappings: "Archive = unlabel INBOX; mark read = unlabel UNREAD; star = label STARRED." It also states when not to use this tool for trash/spam/sent/drafts and points to trash_* for deletion.

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