gmail_archive_messages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the action (removing INBOX) but does not mention permissions needed, reversibility, or any side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth expected for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundant words. Front-loaded with the primary action and constraint.

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 description is complete for a simple archiving task given that no output schema exists. It covers purpose, parameter scope, and basic behavior. Missing details like return value or confirmation, but acceptable for a straightforward 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no specific parameter-level explanation beyond the schema; it provides context for the overall operation but does not enhance individual parameter understanding.

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 specific Gmail message IDs by removing the INBOX label. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gmail_search_messages by explicitly stating 'Does not accept queries,' which prevents confusion with search-based operations.

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 tells when to use the tool: to archive known message IDs. It implies not for queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like gmail_apply_labels_to_messages for label-based operations.

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