gmail_unblock_sender

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 idempotent behavior: an unblocked sender is left alone and reports was_blocked=false. However, for a mutation tool it omits permissions, reversibility, and side effects on folder or thread state.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The parenthetical UI hint earns its place by locating the action, and the idempotency note is brief and useful.

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 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core no-op outcome and UI entry point. It remains thin on permission/auth requirements and how the operation interacts with thread or folder placement, though the schema handles targeting fully.

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 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning for index, query, folder, stay_open, keep_unread, message_index, or expect_subject beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Unblock the sender of a message,' and the UI path reinforces that this is the Gmail unblock action. It does not explicitly name gmail_block_sender as the counterpart, so sibling differentiation is implied by the operation rather than spelled out.

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 where the action appears in the UI and notes the no-op case, but gives no guidance on when to use this rather than gmail_block_sender, gmail_not_spam, or other message actions. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria for choosing this tool.

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