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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds behavioral details beyond that: folder lookup by name, account-scoped search to avoid slowdowns, and mailbox hinting to speed up lookups. However, it does not mention the behavior of the `confirm` parameter or what happens when the target folder doesn't exist.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then each optional parameter gets a reason. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core operation, parameter rationale, and performance caveats. The `confirm` parameter and exact error handling are not addressed, but the output schema likely covers return values, so the description is fairly complete overall.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining `account` and `mailbox` and their provenance from listing tools, plus the meaning of `target_mailbox`. It does not explain `confirm`, and `message_id` is left to be inferred, but the most important parameters are semantically clarified.

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 starts with 'Moves an email to another mailbox' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It also adds a distinguishing detail about nested target folders being found by name, clearly separating it from email reading, sending, and replying siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to pass optional `account` and `mailbox` parameters, referencing list_emails/search_emails as providers. It explains performance implications and timeout risks, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool effectively.

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