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 this is a destructive operation ('delete'), which is useful, but lacks critical details: whether archival is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 at four words, front-loading the key action and resource with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's core function without 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context: parameter details, behavioral implications (permanence, permissions), response format, and differentiation from batch alternatives. The conciseness comes at the cost of necessary completeness for safe agent invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention the emailId parameter at all, offering no guidance on format, source, or validation. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to add any semantic value beyond the obvious, so it scores lower at 3.

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 ('an email record'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like emails_get or emails_update by specifying the destructive archival operation. 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), when to choose batch_archive for multiple emails, or what happens after archival (e.g., recovery options). It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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