confirm_archive_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool moves the email, returns a success message, and errors on invalid, expired, already-used tokens, or when the email changed since prepare. This is helpful behavioral context, though it omits details such as permissions or reversibility.

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?

Three short, focused sentences convey purpose, action, success output, and error conditions without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses minimal words.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow, success/failure behavior, and token validity constraints. It leaves some gaps (e.g., no explicit mention of idempotency or side effects beyond moving the email), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 descriptions already explain both parameters (token_id as approval UUID, email_id must match prepare step), so the description adds little beyond reinforcing the token source. The 100% schema coverage means the description is not required to compensate, so 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 tool confirms and executes an email archive using a token from prepare_archive_email, naming the specific action (moves to Archive folder). It distinguishes itself from the prepare step and other confirm tools by referencing the Archive folder and the token workflow.

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?

It explicitly instructs that the token comes from prepare_archive_email and describes error conditions, implying this is the follow-up step in a two-phase operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling confirm tools and the reference to the prepare step provides sufficient guidance.

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