mute_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions two side effects: immediate archiving and installation of a subject-based filter for future replies. It also notes the tool approximates Gmail's mute, which sets expectations. It does not cover reversibility or permission requirements, but the core mutating behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('Mute a conversation') and then a concise explanation of the two scope behaviors. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what action is performed, the two modes of operation, and the long-term effect of the filter. The input schema fully documents parameters, so no additional details are needed. This is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of the 'scope' parameter by explaining the filter behavior, but it largely duplicates what the schema already provides. No additional insight is given about 'account' or 'thread_id' beyond the schema, so the description adds marginal 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 that the tool mutes a conversation by archiving it and optionally installing a subject-based filter for future auto-archiving. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_emails or add_labels, and the addition of 'Approximates Gmail's client-side mute' provides a familiar reference point.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to mute a conversation, with the ability to either just archive the thread or also set up future auto-archiving via scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavioral contrast between 'archives now' and 'auto-archives future replies' implies when it is needed over simpler archive operations.

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