archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: archiving moves the email into All Mail, clarifying that it is not deletion. However, it does not mention side effects such as removal from the inbox, label behavior, reversibility, or permission requirements.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and destination, then appends the critical parameter format with an example, making it maximally efficient.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, destination, and input format. It is slightly incomplete on behavioral caveats like reversibility or inbox removal, but those are secondary given how clear the core semantics is.

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 provides only a bare string field with 0% coverage, but the description fully compensates by specifying the exact format 'folder:uid' and giving the concrete example 'INBOX:1'. This is precisely the information an agent needs to construct a valid email_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 states a clear verb+resource combination: '归档' (archive) with the explicit behavior '移入 All Mail'. It clearly defines the action and target, and implicitly distinguishes itself from trash (deletion) via the All Mail destination, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 explains what archiving does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like trash_email or move_email. There is no explicit context, precondition, or exclusion to help the agent select this tool over its siblings.

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