gmail_unstar

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and provides almost none: it doesn't say the change is reversible, whether it operates on one or many conversations, or whether a prior gmail.list/gmail.search is required to supply indexes. Only the bare implication of a star-removing mutation comes through.

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 with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined concision, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 tool with seven optional parameters, no required inputs, no annotations, and no output schema gets one sentence with no explanation of selection modes or prerequisites. An agent cannot determine from the description how to target the right conversations.

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 each of the seven selection parameters (all, index, indexes, match, query, folder, max_rows) is already well documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the plural 'conversations', 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?

States a specific verb ('remove the star') and resource ('conversations'), which cleanly mirrors the sibling gmail_star. It does not explicitly name gmail_star as the inverse, but the operation is unambiguous from the text alone.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as gmail_star or gmail_important. Critically, it never explains that a conversation must be selected via index/indexes/match/query/folder/all, which is the central decision the agent must make before invoking.

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