prepare_archive_email

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the preview, approval token, 5-minute expiration, and error on nonexistent email ID. It also implies the actual move does not happen until confirmation, though it doesn't state that explicitly.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, workflow, and token expiration/error conditions.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, next steps, expiration, and error handling. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and proceed correctly.

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% and the parameter description already explains the email_id and provides source examples (list_emails or search_emails). The description adds the error-on-nonexistent-ID behavior, but this relates to validation rather than new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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's specific verb and resource: 'Prepare to archive an email (move to Archive folder)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling confirm_archive_email and other prepare_* tools by detailing the two-step flow with a preview and approval token.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call confirm_archive_email with the token to execute', making the sequential workflow clear. It implies when to use this tool (as a prerequisite before confirmation) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the sibling context reinforces the purpose.

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