archive_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the outcome location (Archive folder) but says nothing about permissions, idempotency when the message is already archived, reversibility, or failure behavior for invalid ids.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and destination, with zero wasted words.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema the definition is minimally workable, but the missing id-format detail and lack of any behavioral notes leave an agent with gaps it would have to discover by trial.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value by noting message_id accepts either a ref or a raw id, but it never defines what a 'ref' looks like or whether both forms are accepted everywhere, leaving the single parameter partly specified.

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?

States a specific verb (move/archive) and resource (message) plus a concrete destination (Archive folder), which implicitly separates it from generic move_message. It never explicitly names a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Single-message scope is implied by the name and the destination implies a lighter-touch alternative to delete_message, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of bulk_archive_messages / move_message as alternatives.

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