gmail_spam

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that conversations are moved to Spam and that a report is sent to Google, plus the confirmation requirement. It does not mention reversibility, permission requirements, or effects on sender reputation.

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?

Two compact sentences with no waste. The core action and outcome are front-loaded, and the confirmation requirement follows immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect and safety prerequisite. It leaves out reversibility and permission details, but the rich schema covers selection mechanics fully, making this largely sufficient.

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 eight selection parameters in detail. The description only echoes the confirm parameter's purpose, adding the rationale that the action is outward-facing/destructive, which is marginally helpful but does not add new selection semantics.

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 spam,' and clarifies the outcome ('moved to Spam'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like gmail_not_spam or gmail_report_phishing, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 states the required prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') and labels the action as outward-facing or destructive, which implies cautious use. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over gmail_trash, gmail_block_sender, or gmail_report_phishing.

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