archive_emails

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that emails are moved to the Archive folder and that UIDs are permanent identifiers, which is a basic mechanism note. However, it omits important side-effect information such as permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to read/unread state, similar to the 'update_drive' example. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it is too thin to provide robust transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundant wording. Every phrase earns its place, and the UID clarification is a valuable addition, making it well-structured for quick consumption.

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 simple tool with strong schema coverage and a clear purpose, the description provides adequate foundational information. However, it lacks explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., 'move_emails') and does not describe potential side effects or return values, which are not covered by an output schema. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps that could affect correct invocation in ambiguous situations.

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 the schema already explains both parameters (uids and folder). The description adds only the note that UIDs are permanent identifiers, which is a slight semantic enhancement but does not materially improve parameter understanding. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: move emails to the Archive folder using UIDs. It specifies the resource (emails), the target (Archive folder), and the mechanism (UIDs), making the purpose easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'move_emails', which could perform a similar operation, so it loses a point for lacking clear sibling distinction.

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 phrase 'for long-term storage' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when needing to archive emails permanently. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the intended use case is reasonably clear. Sibling tools like 'move_emails' are not referenced, preventing a higher score.

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