gmail_delete_forever

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), the required confirm=true guard, the restricted target set, and the specific not_found failure mode on some Gmail builds. It does not describe the response shape or partial-failure behavior across multi-selection, which keeps it below a 5.

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 front-loaded with the irreversible action and its scope, followed by the targeting constraint and the confirm requirement. It is dense but every sentence carries operational information; minor tightening could improve it, but there is no filler.

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 an eight-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context: irreversibility, confirm=true, target restrictions, and the gmail.empty fallback. The selection-parameter semantics are delegated to the fully covered schema, which is acceptable, though a note on multi-selection behavior would make it complete.

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 eight selection parameters (all, index, indexes, match, query, folder, max_rows) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the folder default and the confirm requirement but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete conversations') and narrows the scope to the Trash or Spam folder. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools such as gmail_trash, gmail_archive, and gmail_empty, so an agent can identify the correct operation without inspecting the schema.

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?

It explains the precondition that only conversations in Trash or Spam (or a search restricted to them) can be targeted, and it names gmail.empty as the fallback when per-conversation deletion is unavailable. It does not explicitly contrast with gmail_trash or gmail_restore, but the usage context is clear.

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