move-mail-message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds a critical behavioral detail: 'This creates a new copy of the message in the destination folder and removes the original message.' This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the exact side effect. It also adds the tip about well-known folder names, which clarifies behavior for destination resolution. No contradiction exists.

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 two short sentences plus a single emoji-prefixed tip. The core purpose is stated in the first sentence, the key behavioral consequence in the second, and the tip is genuinely useful. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive move operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what it does, where it moves, and how to specify the destination. It does not mention return values, but the confirm parameter is separately documented in the schema, and the destructive nature is already annotated. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it could benefit from a note about the confirm gate when enabled, but that is covered in the confirm parameter description.

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 80% and the schema already documents most parameters (e.g., messageId, confirm). The description adds semantic value by clarifying that DestinationId accepts either a folder ID or a well-known name (inbox, drafts, etc.), which is not evident from the schema's bare 'type: string'. This is a meaningful addition beyond the structured definition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a message to another folder within the specified user's mailbox.' It immediately distinguishes from siblings like copy-mail-message by explicitly stating it removes the original. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does relative to other mail 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?

The description never names alternative tools or gives exclusions. It implies when to use it based on the semantic of 'move' (removes original) but does not explicitly say 'use this instead of copy-mail-message when you want the original gone.' The tip about DestinationId is operational but not about tool selection. This is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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