gmail_star

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden, and it discloses nothing: not idempotency, not reversibility (gmail_unstar exists), not what happens when no target parameter is supplied despite zero required params, and not whether starring affects only the selected rows or the whole thread.

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 words are technically waste-free but represent under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded context, no scope, and nothing for the agent to anchor on.

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?

A mutation tool with 7 parameters, zero required fields, no annotations and no output schema demands far more than a two-word description. An agent cannot tell from this text what must be supplied to select conversations or what the outcome is.

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%, and the seven selection parameters (all, index, indexes, match, query, folder, max_rows) are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional selection semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Star conversations" gives a recognizable verb and resource, so the action is identifiable. But with siblings gmail_unstar, gmail_important and gmail_not_important present, the description makes no attempt to distinguish starring from those closely-related actions.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus gmail_important, gmail_label, or gmail_unstar. Nothing about required selection context, though the schema hints a target must come from gmail.list/gmail.search.

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