emails_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('archive/delete') without clarifying permanence, reversibility, permissions required, or error conditions. It mentions 'delete' which implies destructive behavior, but lacks details on consequences (e.g., whether archived emails are recoverable).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical aspects like what 'archive' entails, potential side effects, required permissions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for safe agent use.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the action. The single parameter 'emailId' is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline is 3 since schema coverage is low but description doesn't compensate meaningfully.

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 clearly states the verb ('archive/delete') and resource ('an email record'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like emails_get or emails_update by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from emails_batch_archive, which handles multiple emails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emails_batch_archive for multiple emails or emails_update for modifications. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing email) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations).

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