emails_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Archive (delete)') and batch behavior, but lacks critical details: whether archiving is reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what 'delete' entails (soft/hard). For a destructive batch tool, this is insufficient.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place. No unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 batch tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses behavioral details (reversibility, permissions), parameter specifics, and response expectations. Given the complexity and risk of batch deletion, more context is needed.

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 minimal value beyond the schema. It implies 'emailIds' parameter corresponds to 'multiple email records', but doesn't explain format, constraints, or maximum batch size. With 1 parameter and low coverage, baseline is 3 as the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 action ('Archive (delete) multiple email records') and resource ('email records'), with 'in a single request' indicating batch operation. It distinguishes from sibling 'emails_archive' by specifying batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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_archive' (single email) or other batch operations. The description mentions 'multiple email records' but doesn't specify thresholds, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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