archive_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does reveal the key behavior: it archives by removing the INBOX label. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as reversibility, permissions, or whether messages remain accessible elsewhere.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and mechanism. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the purpose and mechanism. Some details about output or side effects are missing, but the core functionality is sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (account and message_ids), so the schema already documents them fully. The description only restates that account is required, adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Archive messages') and adds the mechanism ('removing INBOX label'), making it clear what the tool does. This distinguishes it from siblings like trash_emails and remove_labels by framing it as an archival operation.

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 description implies usage for archiving messages and notes the account requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like remove_labels or trash_emails. There is no direct comparison or exclusion of sibling tools.

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