mail_archive

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

Annotations show destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds that the operation removes the INBOX label and returns a dict with 'id'. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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: two sentences plus a return note. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a critical usage warning. No wasted 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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, return value, and a usage caution. It could mention parameter details, but overall is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the message_id parameter, but it does not. No format, source, or details are provided beyond the schema itself.

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 verb 'Archive' and the resource 'a message in Hermes's inbox', and explains the effect of removing the INBOX label. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_mark_read or mail_search.

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 includes the warning 'Never call without user confirmation', but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus other mail-related sibling tools. It lacks a clear when-to/when-not-to guideline.

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