archive_emailsMove selected email messages out of the inbox and into the archive to clear inbox clutter while keeping them available for later retrieval.
Move messages out of the inbox into the archive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | No | Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected. | |
| messageIds | Yes | Messages to change, up to 100 IDs |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.0Input schema / properties / accountId / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / messageIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Messages to change, up to 100 distinct IDs"New value: +"Messages to change, up to 100 IDs"Input schema / properties / messageIds / items / maxLengthAdded value: +512Input schema / properties / messageIds / maxItemsAdded value: +100v0.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the inbox-to-archive effect, but does not describe permissions, reversibility via restore_emails, or what happens to labels/read state.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The operation and destination are conveyed immediately.
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?
An output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, so much of the calling contract is already provided. The description covers the core action but omits sibling differentiation and behavioral details like restorability, leaving a minor gap.
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 100%, so accountId and messageIds are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Move messages') plus the destination ('into the archive'), so the operation is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling operations like move_emails or trash_emails, which keeps it from 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?
The phrase 'out of the inbox into the archive' implies when to use the tool, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives such as move_emails or trash_emails. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.