archive_email

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's not destructive. The description adds no major behavioral context beyond the move semantics (e.g., it doesn't mention whether archival removes from the current folder, whether it's reversible, or permission needs). Since the annotation already covers the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but with room for more behavioral detail.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core action, the second gives usage context, and the remaining three sentences list alternatives. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and which alternatives to prefer. The annotation covers destructiveness, and the schema covers the parameter. No additional context is needed.

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%, with the emailId parameter clearly documented as 'Composite email id in FOLDER::UID format, as returned by get_emails or search_emails.' The description does not add extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Move a single email to the standard Archive folder.' It specifies the verb (move), resource (email), destination (Archive folder), and scope (single). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming trash_email, move_email, and batch_email_action as alternatives, making it unmistakable.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for messages that are resolved but worth keeping long-term.' It also gives clear exclusions and alternatives: '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.' This fully addresses selection vs. alternatives.

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