archive_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (moving to Archive) but does not mention side effects (e.g., does it remove from INBOX? does it change read status?), required permissions, reversibility, or any limitations. The note about UIDs being permanent is useful but minimal.

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 with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a useful clarification about UIDs. No wasted words, though the description could have used the space to differentiate from move_emails or add usage guidance.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context such as whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the emails in the source folder, potential failure modes, or any prerequisites. It also fails to clarify how it differs from move_emails, which is a sibling that likely has similar behavior.

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 schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (uids: 'Array of UIDs to archive'; folder: 'Source folder'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the UID permanence note, which is not strictly tied to parameter usage. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states the action (move/archive), resource (emails), and destination (Archive folder). It also explains UIDs are permanent identifiers, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling move_emails, leaving slight ambiguity about the distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_emails or delete_emails. The phrase 'for long-term storage' implies a purpose but does not state conditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage without direct direction.

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