gmail_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does clarify the core behavior: archiving means only removing the INBOX label, not deleting messages. It does not discuss idempotence, error cases, or whether messages without other labels are affected, but the key side effect is explicitly disclosed.

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 active-voice sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It omits the expected return value, behavior for already-archived or non-existent message IDs, and potential errors, leaving clear gaps for an agent relying solely on this definition.

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 50%; only 'account' is documented. The tool description says 'Gmail messages' but does not explain how messageIds should be obtained, what format they use, or any constraints beyond the schema's basic array items. The description adds little semantic value over the parameter names.

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 ('Archive'), a clear resource ('Gmail messages'), and a precise mechanism ('removing the INBOX label'). This removes ambiguity around whether archiving deletes or moves messages)Skip to content, and distinguishes it from related label-management operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool rather than gmail_apply_labels, gmail_search, or other Gmail operations. The intended use is implied by the verb 'Archive', but no prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are stated.

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