archive_email_zone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive an email zone' only states the action; it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, whether special permissions are required, what side effects occur, or what the response will be. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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, complete sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word contributes meaning. It is maximally concise without being nonsensical, unlike a tautological single word.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about the tool's behavior and return value. It only states the operation, leaving the agent without information about the post-archive state, whether an archived email zone can be unarchived, or what a successful response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no supplementary context.

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 covers the single parameter 'id' with a description 'Email zone ID' (100% schema description coverage). The tool description does not add any further semantic detail, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Archive an email zone' clearly specifies the verb (archive) and resource (email zone), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from the general 'archive_zone' and 'vast_archive_zone' by including 'email', but does not explicitly call out this differentiation in the description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'archive_zone', 'unarchive_email_zone', or 'vast_archive_zone'. The description does not mention prerequisites, effects, or any context that would help an agent decide to invoke this specific tool.

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