archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (label removal) and return structure (archived_count, failed_count), but omits safety/reversibility details, rate limits, or partial failure behavior beyond the return keys.

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?

Docstring-style Args/Returns format is slightly redundant with structured schema fields, but efficient given the lack of schema descriptions. No wasted prose.

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 single-parameter mutation tool, the description adequately covers the parameter, operation semantics, and return structure. Missing only edge-case handling details.

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 0% (no property descriptions), but the Args section compensates by documenting message_ids as 'List of message IDs to archive,' clarifying the expected input format.

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 defines 'archive' concretely as 'removing INBOX and UNREAD labels,' avoiding tautology. It distinguishes from sibling mark_as_read by specifying both labels are removed (inbox removal is the key differentiator).

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 on when to choose this over mark_as_read (which likely only removes UNREAD) or delete. No mention of typical use cases like 'inbox zero' workflows or that archived emails remain searchable via search.

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