gmail_untrash

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states the action, omitting what happens to the message (e.g., restored to inbox), whether the message must currently be trashed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that communicates the operation without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple, one-parameter tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral transparency makes it only minimally adequate. It covers the core action but leaves out peripheral but useful context.

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 no description for the message_id parameter, and the description does not explain what the parameter is or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema field name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('a Gmail message') and location ('from the trash'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like gmail_trash.

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?

The usage context is implied by the name and description: it's for restoring a trashed message. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance or alternatives mentioned, which is acceptable but not proactive.

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