archive_emails

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

Annotations indicate destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auto-detection of the Archive folder via RFC 6154 flag with fallback to common names, and that partial results report per-ID status without automatic retry. This goes beyond the annotations, though the annotations already set expectations for destructiveness.

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 concise with two sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the purpose immediately, then adds key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (archiving with folder detection, partial results, prerequisite step), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, prerequisites, behavior on partial failures, and no need to explain return values since an output schema exists. Fully adequate.

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 input schema describes all three parameters (mailbox, email_ids, account_name) with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that email_ids come from list_emails_metadata and mentioning the folder detection logic, which complements the schema. However, the schema already does most of the work.

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 core action: 'Archive one or more emails by moving them to the account's Archive folder'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name itself matches the description, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_mailboxes and download_attachment.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Use list_emails_metadata first' as a prerequisite step. It also describes the result reporting behavior for partial/ambiguous effects, implying when to check results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but given the siblings, the context is sufficient.

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