mail_trash_messages

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether the move is reversible, if it requires special permissions, or what happens to the messages (e.g., whether threads are affected). This is insufficient 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 concise sentence with no redundant information. It is efficiently structured, though it could be expanded slightly to improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or scope (e.g., whether it applies to one mailbox or all). A trivial mutation tool like this requires more context for proper use.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no semantics beyond 'by id'. It does not explain the format (array of integers), constraints (minItems: 1), or behavior when an ID is invalid. The parameter's purpose is self-evident but the description fails to provide any added value.

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 ('Move messages to Trash') and the resource ('messages'), and the inclusion of 'by id' references the parameter. This distinguishes it from siblings like mail_archive_messages, though it could be more specific about the destination mailbox.

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 mail_archive_messages or mail_move_messages. The description does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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