organize_emails

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

Beyond the annotations, the description clarifies that no emails are deleted, explains how archiving and read-marking are implemented via label removal, and states that the tool returns the number of changed emails. It does not cover permission requirements or reversibility, but the annotations already communicate the mutating and destructive nature of the operation.

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 four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most useful label semantics. Every sentence contributes meaning without repetition.

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 label-mutation tool with no output schema and fairly rich parameter descriptions, the definition covers the essential behavior: selection modes, common label operations, non-deletion of emails, and return value. It could say more about permissions or rate limits, but it is sufficient for correct 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 coverage is high, but the description adds operational meaning by explaining that emails can be selected by ID or by Gmail search and by giving label-removal recipes for archive and mark-as-read. It does not add detail for parameters like account or max, which the schema already covers.

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: adds or removes labels on emails. It also names the two selection modes, by message ID or Gmail search, which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like search_emails and get_email.

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 gives practical usage context by mapping common actions to label changes: archive means remove INBOX, and mark as read means remove UNREAD. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the operating context is clear.

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