emails_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('archive/delete') but doesn't specify whether this is permanent deletion or reversible archiving, what permissions are required, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what the response contains. The parenthetical '(delete)' adds some clarity but leaves ambiguity about the actual behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive batch operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like response format, error conditions, idempotency, or system behavior when processing multiple records. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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. It implies the parameter relates to 'multiple email records' but doesn't explain what emailIds represent, their format, or constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from the schema's parameter name and type.

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 ('multiple email records') with the scope 'in a single request'. It distinguishes from the singular 'emails_archive' sibling tool by specifying batch operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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 like the singular 'emails_archive' or other batch operations. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for batch archiving versus individual operations.

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