Arquivar um email

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

The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond the annotations: it states the email remains available, says it only leaves the Inbox, and explicitly says it is not deletion. It also requires the agent to warn the user before executing, which is a useful safety guardrail not expressed in the structured metadata.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core action first, then adds the non-deletion clarification and the user-warning instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: the destination folder, the non-destructive nature, and the required user interaction. No critical information is 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?

The only parameter, id, is fully covered by the schema with 'ID do email.' The description adds no extra meaning about the ID's format, scope, or validity, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action — moving an email to the Archive (Arquivo Morto) folder — and explicitly distinguishes this from deletion. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling outlook_mover_email, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 makes the use case clear: use it when the intent is to archive, and clarifies it is not for deletion. It also provides a direct operational guideline to warn the user before executing, but it does not mention when to use the plural variant outlook_arquivar_emails or outlook_mover_email as alternatives.

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