gmail_modify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses reversibility ('nothing is deleted') and automatic label creation, which are key behavioral traits. Missing details on rate limits, auth scopes, or error handling for exceeding 500 messages.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Batch-modify up to 500 messages') and efficiently lists operations. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main actions and reversibility. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and parameter constraints (e.g., message_ids format). Overall sufficient for common 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the effects of archive, mark_read, add_labels, remove_labels, but does not detail the format of message_ids or label strings. It adds some meaning beyond the schema's property titles but not comprehensively.

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 it batch-modifies messages with specific actions (add/remove labels, archive, mark read). It distinguishes from siblings like gmail_read (reading) and gmail_search (searching) by focusing on modification operations.

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 description explicitly mentions 'batch-modify up to 500 messages' and lists the actions, implying use for bulk modifications. However, it does not provide explicit 'when to use vs when not' or compare to single-message operations.

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