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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context that nothing is permanently deleted, which clarifies the severity of the move operation beyond the annotations. It does not describe auth needs or side effects beyond that.

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 efficient sentence with the core action and destination values front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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?

The annotations cover safety and behavior well, and the description adds the no-permanent-deletion nuance and folder examples. However, with three parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no required parameters declared, the description does not fully clarify invocation requirements such as the destination folder parameter.

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 the description must carry parameter meaning. It names email_message_id and email_message_uuid as alternatives and lists valid folder destinations, but it never names the email_message_folder parameter or states that an identifier and a destination folder are required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: move an email message, with destinations INBOX, SENT, SPAM, or TRASH. It distinguishes itself from permanent deletion by noting nothing is permanently deleted, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling trash_email_message, which overlaps with moving to TRASH.

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?

Provides clear usage examples such as marking as spam or restoring from trash, which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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