archive_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the primary effect (hides from default inbox/history), which is useful, but does not mention whether the operation is reversible, whether the message remains searchable, or any permission requirements. This is adequate for a simple archive operation but lacks depth.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action ('Archive a message') and immediately providing the key consequence in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main functional effect but omits details about return values, error conditions, or reversibility. With no annotations or output schema to fill gaps, a bit more context would be needed for full completeness.

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?

The schema has one parameter, message_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the schema to fully define it. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning, such as the format or origin of the ID.

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 uses the specific verb 'Archive' and the resource 'a message', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like read_message or react_message. The parenthetical 'hides from default inbox/history' further clarifies the exact scope of the operation.

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 implies usage for decluttering or hiding messages from the default view, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mark_unread, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context (hiding from inbox/history) but no alternatives.

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