gmail_archive_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that archiving removes the INBOX label and marks the thread dismissed in the curation ledger, as well as auto-advancing during triage. However, it does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects when not in a triage pass.

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 three sentences long, with the main action in the first sentence. It is fairly efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. Minor waste could be trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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 tool has two parameters and an output schema. The description covers behavioral aspects but leaves out parameter documentation and return value explanation. Given the lack of annotations, this is incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention thread_id or user_id at all. The agent receives no guidance on what these parameters represent or how to use them.

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 tool archives a Gmail thread by removing the INBOX label and mentions marking the thread dismissed in the curation ledger. This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool gmail_inbox.archive, which might have a similar purpose.

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 implies use during a triage pass with the phrase 'During a triage pass, continue on to the next uncurated or stale thread.' But it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_inbox.archive, nor does it state when not to use it.

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