gmail_archive

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful semantic context: archiving removes the message from the inbox and does not delete it. This goes beyond the boolean hints.

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 short and front-loaded: a single clear sentence defines the action and non-destructive nature, followed by a minimal parameter note. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter, largely non-destructive operation with annotations and an output schema, the description provides enough functional context to invoke the tool correctly. It only lacks explicit mention of label effects or response details, which are not critical here.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the Args section compensates by explaining message_id as 'Message to archive,' giving clear purpose beyond the schema's bare 'Message Id.' It fully covers the only parameter.

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 the specific verb 'Archive' applied to 'a message' and clarifies the exact effect: 'taking it out of the inbox.' 'Nothing is deleted' distinguishes it from destructive alternatives like gmail_trash.

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 operation itself is clear, and 'Nothing is deleted' implies this is not the tool for permanent deletion. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives such as gmail_trash or states conditions for choosing this tool over them.

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