gmail_untrash

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

Annotations already provide the mutation/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds no extra behavior detail such as no-op behavior for already-untrashed messages, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and contains only the necessary parameter line. There is no boilerplate or wasted text.

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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the definition is sufficient to make a correct call; return-value explanation is unnecessary. It lacks explicit prerequisite or alternative information, but that is not essential for this simple operation.

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 parameter meaning; 'message_id: Message to restore' provides the basic role of the single parameter. It does not add format, source, or invalid-ID behavior, but for a single self-explanatory argument the minimal clarification is adequate.

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 first line uses a specific verb and object ('Take a message back out of the trash'), clearly defining an untrash operation. It is naturally distinguished from the sibling gmail_trash, and no other sibling matches this action.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation name and first line: invoke when a previously trashed message must be restored. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as gmail_trash for the opposite action.

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