gmail_not_spam

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the key mutation effect: conversations return to the Inbox and the default source is the Spam folder. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, confirmation behavior, or what happens if no selection parameters are supplied.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, the destination, and the default list efficiently.

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?

The core action is communicated, and the schema fully explains selection semantics, so the agent can determine how to select conversations. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on behavioral context and usage routing, making it adequate rather than 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 schema already documents all seven selection parameters thoroughly. The description adds only a minor note about the default Spam folder, which corresponds to the folder parameter default, 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: report conversations as not spam, and it names the destination (Inbox) and default source folder (Spam). An agent can distinguish it from gmail_spam by operation, but the description never explicitly names that sibling or other alternatives like gmail_restore.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as gmail_spam, gmail_restore, or gmail_move. There are no exclusions or context conditions, 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.