gmail_trash

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

Annotations already convey that this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context about the 30-day retention period. However, it does not clarify what happens after 30 days or explicitly note recoverability via gmail_untrash.

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 very concise and well-structured: one clear functional sentence followed by the parameter line. No filler or redundant explanation.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action and retention window, though it omits guidance on restoration and the permanent-deletion implication after 30 days.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It does minimally by saying 'message_id: Message to trash,' which is more semantic than the schema's 'Message Id'. However, it does not specify the ID format or where the ID should come from.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a message to the trash.' It also adds a meaningful retention detail. It is naturally distinguishable from siblings like gmail_archive or gmail_untrash, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gmail_archive or gmail_untrash. The description only states what the tool does and gives no exclusions, context, or routing hints.

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