Archive one Gmail thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (removes INBOX label) and source dependencies, but omits details like whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or side effects on other labels.

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 very concise with two sentences, each adding value. However, it could be structured to include parameter explanations without adding much length.

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 archive tool with low complexity, the description covers the core action and threadId source. However, it lacks output/return value description and does not leverage the opportunity to compensate for missing annotations or schema descriptions.

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 0%, so description should explain all parameters. It only addresses threadId (source), but does not define accountAlias or chatScope, leaving their purpose unclear. This is a significant gap.

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 (archive a Gmail thread) and the mechanism (removing INBOX label). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'for the active account', contrasting with multi-account variants. The source of threadId is also mentioned.

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 implicit usage guidance by stating the context (active account) and recommended threadId sources, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like multi_gmail_archive or when not to use it.

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