Archive Gmail messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most consequential traits: the operation is non-destructive ("kept, never deleted") and it works by inbox-label removal. It omits permission/auth requirements, batching limits, and whether the change is reversible, which would matter for a bulk mutation.

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, no filler, with the core action and the safety guarantee front-loaded before the usage guidance. 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, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: action, mechanism, and non-destructiveness are all covered. Minor gaps remain around bulk behavior (up to 500 ids) and authorization context, which the absence of annotations leaves unaddressed.

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 100% and the single `ids` parameter is documented there, including the 1-500 bounds. The description adds no format or constraint 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 precise verb (archive) plus the mechanism (removing the INBOX label), which is exactly the operation that separates it from siblings like gmail_apply_label and gmail_mark_read. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from label/star/read tools without opening the schema.

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?

"Use for newsletters, promotions, notifications and other noise after triage" gives clear, actionable context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not name an alternative (e.g., delete or apply_label) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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