archive_emails

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the operation uses UIDs and that UIDs are permanent, which implies the operation is based on stable identifiers. However, it does not state whether the source folder is affected (e.g., are emails removed from source? It says 'move', implying yes), nor any auth requirements, rate limits, or reversibility. The description is minimally transparent 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 two sentences long, each sentence serves a distinct purpose. No fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and clearly structured.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks guidance on return values, side effects (e.g., does it delete from source?), and how it differs from move_emails. Given the presence of similar siblings, more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'UIDs are permanent identifiers' provides context for the uids parameter, but does not explain the folder parameter beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Move emails'), the destination ('Archive folder'), and the method ('using UIDs'). It also clarifies that UIDs are permanent identifiers, which is helpful. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_emails or move_emails (which allow arbitrary folders).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., move_emails, delete_emails). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The user must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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