Archive threads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two valuable traits: nothing is deleted (non-destructive) and a new reply automatically un-archives the thread. It omits rate limits, permission requirements, and the 200-thread batch ceiling (only implied by the schema).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the non-destructive guarantee, then the auto-restore behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers reversibility and side effects well. Minor gaps (batch size, partial-failure behavior) are handled by the schema, so it is close to complete.

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 both parameters are already documented (archived semantics and 'Thread ids from list_threads'). The description restates the archived toggle in prose but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Archive) and resource (threads) and explains the outcome ('get them out of the inbox'), plus the reversible variant via archived=false. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like mark_read and mark_spam, which affect different states.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use ('to get them out of the inbox') and the inverse condition ('move them back with archived set to false'), so the agent knows both directions. It does not, however, name alternative tools (mark_read, mark_spam) for overlapping inbox-management needs.

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