trash_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the operation is a soft delete (recoverable) and that the email is moved into the trash, which is key behavioral context for a mutation. It does not cover permission requirements, but the essential consequence is communicated.

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 compact sentence with no fluff: it front-lloads the action and follows with the parameter format. Every part earns its place.

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 with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the action, the behavioral trait of soft deletion, and the exact parameter format. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is captured under usage guidelines; otherwise the description is complete for invocation.

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 only specifies a string parameter with no description, so the description must compensate. It precisely defines the required format 'folder:uid' with a concrete example 'INBOX:1', giving the agent everything needed to construct a valid email_id.

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 clear verb and resource: move an email into the trash, and adds the nuance 'soft delete' which distinguishes it from permanent deletion. It does not explicitly reference sibling alternatives like archive or move_email, so differentiation from similar actions is left implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use trash_email versus alternatives such as archive, move_email, or mark_read. The description only explains what the tool does, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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