archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the immediate action and does not disclose whether the thread remains accessible, whether other labels are preserved, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects beyond INBOX removal.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the entire meaning of the tool and is appropriately sized for the simple operation.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, with no annotations and no usage or parameter description, the context is only minimally complete; account and behavior around labels are still under-specified.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It implies thread_id refers to a Gmail thread, but account is left entirely ambiguous, and no format, source, or validation details are provided.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove INBOX from a thread.' This clearly defines the archiving action and distinguishes it from siblings like trash (delete) and unlabel (any label), so an agent can tell what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use archive versus alternatives such as trash, untrash, or unlabel. There is no mention of intended workflow, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action name alone.

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