Apple Archive Message

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

Annotations already signal non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the useful decision logic: use the preferred archive mailbox if a preference exists, otherwise auto-detect. It doesn't cover failure modes or side effects on the original message, but this is reasonable given the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the fallback behavior. Every clause adds meaningful information.

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?

The core behavior is described, but the description omits how optional archive_account and archive_mailbox interact with the preferred mailbox or auto-detection logic. This matters for correctly invoking the tool in specific-target requests. Output schema and annotations mitigate some gaps, but the omission is noticeable.

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%, and the description does not explain message_id, archive_account, or archive_mailbox. The auto-detect clause gives minimal context to the archive target parameters, but the required message_id is entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a message'), and clearly defines the target ('preferred archive mailbox' or auto-detected). This distinguishes it from generic mail_move_message and thread-level mail_archive_thread without needing to name them.

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 intended use is implied: archive a single message to the preferred or auto-detected archive mailbox. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives, so the agent must infer when to choose this over sibling tools like mail_archive_thread or mail_move_message.

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