emails_batch_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'archive (delete)', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what the response format is. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive batch operation.

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 ('archive (delete)') and key details ('multiple', 'single request'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of a destructive batch operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the 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 'emailIds' by mentioning 'multiple email records', but doesn't add meaning beyond what's inferred from the schema (e.g., format of IDs, source of IDs, or constraints like maximum array size). With one parameter and low coverage, this provides minimal added value.

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'), specifying it's a batch operation ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from the singular 'emails_archive' sibling by emphasizing batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly mention all sibling alternatives like 'emails_batch_create' or 'emails_batch_read'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emails_archive' for single emails or other batch operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing email IDs from prior reads, or exclusions, like not being suitable for creating emails.

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