gmail_unsnooze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core outcome (conversations return to the Inbox now) and the default source list, but does not mention that this is a mutating action, whether it can be undone (e.g., via gmail_undo), or how selections using query/folder behave.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the effect, and the default context with zero filler. Every element earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite thin. It covers the essential effect but leaves behavioral details (mutation/undo semantics, selection behavior) to be inferred, which is a moderate gap even though the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 every parameter thoroughly. The description adds only that the default list is the Snoozed folder, which aligns with the folder parameter's default but does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Unsnooze conversations') and the resulting effect ('they return to the Inbox now'), which is clearer than a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling gmail_snooze, but the action is unambiguous on its own.

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 parenthetical 'default list: the Snoozed folder' implies the appropriate context (act on snoozed conversations), but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like gmail_restore or gmail_move. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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