mail_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Move', implying mutation, but never states whether the email is recoverable from Archive, whether the original folder is recorded, or that the schema's confirm/dry_run flags gate a preview-vs-commit flow. That preview behavior is material and only discoverable by reading parameter docs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere rather than compensating for them.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the terse description is the only source of behavioral framing, and it omits the preview/confirm mechanics, result reporting, and error behavior. Notably, the confirm parameter's schema text mentions deletes and multi-recipient sends, which reads as generic boilerplate unrelated to archiving and is not reconciled in the description.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the file_path alternative to message_id. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no bonus.

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 and resource ('Move an email to its account's Archive mailbox'), which is clearly distinguishable from mass operations. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, mail_trash, leaving the agent to infer that Archive is a non-destructive relocation rather than a delete.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as first resolving a message_id via mail_search or mail_read. The agent must infer the entire selection context from sibling names alone.

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