archive_email

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, consistent with archiving. Description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the target folder ('standard Archive folder') and the purpose ('resolved but worth keeping long-term'). It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like response format or permissions, but for a non-destructive move operation, this is adequate.

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?

Description is concise with two focused sentences. The first sentence states the core action; the second provides usage guidelines with alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff, and it's front-loaded.

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 simple single-email archival tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, target, and usage context. It lacks explicit mention of return behavior, but that is minimal given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is complete enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the description repeats the schema's parameter description verbatim: 'Composite email id in FOLDER::UID format, as returned by get_emails or search_emails.' No new meaning added beyond schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Move a single email to the standard Archive folder.' It specifies the verb (move) and resource (single email to Archive folder), distinguishing from siblings by mentioning alternatives (trash_email, move_email, batch_email_action).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use for messages that are resolved but worth keeping long-term.' It also provides clear exclusions: 'Prefer trash_email when the message is no longer needed. Prefer move_email to route to a custom folder. Prefer batch_email_action for archiving multiple emails at once.'

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