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. It discloses the destructive 'archive/delete' action but lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, confirmation prompts, error handling for partial failures, or what happens to associated data. The mention of 'multiple email records' hints at batch capability but doesn't elaborate on batch size limits or processing 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?

Perfectly concise single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Archive/delete'), followed by resource scope and request context. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It identifies the tool's basic purpose but lacks critical context about behavioral implications, parameter details, error handling, and system constraints that an agent needs 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 mentions 'multiple email records' which aligns with the 'emailIds' array parameter, providing some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain what email IDs are (format, source, validation), whether they must exist, or any constraints on the array (min/max size, uniqueness). The description adds basic meaning but leaves significant gaps.

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 action ('archive/delete') and resource ('multiple email records') with the scope 'in a single request'. It distinguishes from 'emails_archive' by specifying batch capability, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other batch operations like 'emails_batch_create' or 'emails_batch_update'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emails_archive' (single email) or other batch operations. The description implies batch processing but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for batch versus individual operations.

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