emails_batch_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a destructive action ('Archive (delete)') which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and misses critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential 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?

For a destructive batch tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversible deletion), parameter specifics, error cases, and what the tool returns. The context signals indicate high complexity that isn't addressed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is for 'multiple email records' but doesn't specify the format of 'emailIds' (e.g., IDs, email addresses) or constraints (e.g., max batch size). The description adds some meaning by linking 'emailIds' to 'email records', but falls short of fully documenting the single parameter.

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 action ('Archive (delete) multiple email records') and resource ('email records'), and specifies it's a batch operation ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from the singular 'emails_archive' sibling by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'batch', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emails_archive' for single emails or other batch operations. It mentions the batch nature but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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