Folders & Labels

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

Given the annotations already mark it non-read-only and destructive, the description adds useful behavioral context: Gmail labels are returned/managed instead of folders, and action-specific permission scopes are disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds two high-value clarifications (Gmail label equivalence and permission split). No wasted words.

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?

The description plus a rich schema covers the tool's four actions, required parameters, provider-specific behavior, and permissions. It omits any mention of alternatives, but that gap is captured under usage_guidelines; overall context is sufficient for a competent agent.

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 schema already explains each parameter, including the Gmil vs IMAP interpretation of folder_id. The tool description adds only the cross-provider framing, which helps conceptual understanding but does not significantly extend the schema's param-level documentation.

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?

Description states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Manage mailbox folders', and adds the critical nuance that on Gmil these are labels. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like email_organize, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped: an agent can infer to use this tool when managing folders/labels. It provides permission guidance ('list needs read:email, the rest manage:folders') but does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it.

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