gmail_unmute

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It valuably states the post-condition — conversations stay archived after unmuting — which is a non-obvious side effect and the main source of agent error. It says nothing about permissions, whether the change is reversible (gmail_mute exists, but that isn't linked), or what happens to conversations when no selector is given.

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?

A single sentence pair with zero filler: the action and its post-condition come first, the sibling redirect comes second. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing could be cut.

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 stateless action tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: purpose, the state outcome, and the alternative for Inbox restoration, while the rich 100%-documented schema handles selection mechanics. What is missing is only a note on the failure mode when no selector is provided, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters (all/index/indexes/match/query/folder/max_rows) are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely useful semantic detail — the `is:muted` query value that enumerates the target set — but leaves the index-vs-query-vs-match selection choice entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — unmute conversations — and disambiguates from the adjacent `gmail_mute` and `gmail_restore` siblings by naming the restore alternative for Inbox delivery. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening 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?

Provides a concrete entry point (`query='is:muted'`) and an explicit routing rule — use gmail.restore when the goal is to bring mail back to the Inbox rather than merely unmute. Missing only an explicit statement that muting/unmuting is independent of archival state in general, but the key when-to-use signal is present.

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