archive_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior — the destination resolves to a configured or server-advertised archive folder — but says nothing about permissions, what happens if no archive folder exists, or whether the move is reversible.

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 no filler, and the destination is stated up front. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and two entirely undocumented parameters, this is under-specified. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the failure modes, permission requirements, and folder-parameter semantics are all missing.

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 and it does not. It never explains the 'uid' selector, and because it frames the target as a fixed archive folder it leaves the role of the 'folder' parameter (default INBOX, presumably the source folder) ambiguous.

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 and resource ('Move a message') plus the destination ('archive folder'), which is concrete enough to act on. It implicitly separates itself from the generic sibling move_message by fixing the destination, but never names that sibling or the distinction explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for parking a message in the archive rather than deleting (delete_message) or relocating to an arbitrary folder (move_message). No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given.

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