gmail_obliterate_cse_keypair

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly communicates irreversibility and permanence. Lacks details on required permissions or side effects (e.g., impact on encryption), but the core destructive behavior is well described.

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?

Single sentence, every word adds value. No redundancy. Front-loads the key information about permanence and irreversibility.

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?

Description covers the main action and effect but omits context like prerequisites (e.g., key pair must be disabled) or what happens after destruction (e.g., no return value). Given no output schema and simple input, minimal but adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with clear description of keyPairId parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score applies.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('destroy') and resource ('CSE key pair') with strong emphasis on permanence and irreversibility ('no recovery possible'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_disable_cse_keypair by highlighting the irreversible nature.

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?

Description explicitly states the use case: permanent destruction. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the irreversibility effectively implies it should not be used when recovery might be needed, and siblings like enable/disable offer reversible alternatives.

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