iam_archive

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'archive one fully handled inbox message.' It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the message is deleted or moved), authorization needs, or reversibility. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it under-specified for an AI agent to understand proper usage.

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 existence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description fails to explain the archiving behavior, prerequisites, or constraints. With one parameter and no explanatory context, it is incomplete.

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 sole parameter 'message_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool's description does not explain what message_id is, how to obtain it, or its format, so it adds almost no value beyond the schema's type.

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 specifies the verb 'archive' and resource 'inbox message' clearly. The qualifier 'fully handled' adds context. However, it doesn't define what archiving entails (e.g., moving to archive folder), but it is distinct from sibling tools like iam_read or iam_send.

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 archive versus alternatives like iam_inbox or iam_read. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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