Mail Archive Thread

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

Annotations say destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context; the word 'archive' in the title implies moving/copying a message thread, but the description itself does not state side effects, permission needs, or what happens to the original messages. The description doesn't contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral transparency beyond what the title suggests.

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 short but uninformative; it spends its only sentence on the unhelpful 'Delegated Apple domain tool' boilerplate rather than explaining what the tool does. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no meaningful description, the definition is grossly incomplete. Even though an output schema exists, the agent cannot know what inputs mean or what the operation does, and sibling tools such as mail_get_thread and apple_archive_message create ambiguity that the description never resolves.

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%, so no parameter is documented in the schema. The description also fails to explain any parameter, including the required message_id, the meaning of limit, archive_account, or archive_mailbox. With 0% schema coverage and no description-based parameter guidance, the agent has almost no semantic information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 name and title suggest archiving a mail thread, but the description only states it is a 'Delegated Apple domain tool' exposed through a bridge, which doesn't say what the tool does. The verb is absent or at best implicit in the title, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like mail_get_thread, mail_move_message, apple_preview_archive_message, or apple_archive_message.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many mail-related siblings. There is no indication of prerequisites, such as needing an archive_account/archive_mailbox, or when to prefer mail_move_message or apple_archive_message instead.

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