emails_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive action ('Archive (delete)') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the email (e.g., moved to trash vs. permanent deletion). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness contributes to gaps 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral traits, parameter details, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies the parameter 'emailId' by context but doesn't explain its format, source, or constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, which only shows emailId as a required string, resulting in a baseline score due to incomplete compensation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Archive (delete)') and resource ('an email record'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like emails_get or emails_update by focusing on archival/deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from emails_batch_archive, which handles multiple emails.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an emailId), exclusions (e.g., not for batch operations), or comparisons to siblings like emails_batch_archive for multiple emails or emails_delete if deletion differs from archiving.

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