Enviar emails para Itens Excluídos

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it clarifies this is never permanent deletion, states that no permanent-delete tool exists, discloses that the tool itself requests human confirmation, and explains the id_atual refresh behavior after a move. This goes well beyond the annotation data and directly helps the agent avoid dangerous misuse.

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 longer than average, but it is appropriately front-loaded with 'AÇÃO DESTRUTIVA' and uses a clear numbered list for mandatory steps. Every sentence contributes safety or workflow information, so the length is justified; it still feels dense but not bloated.

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, multi-step tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers confirmation requirements, recoverability, the absence of permanent-deletion tooling, and even the special case of reusing a returned id_atual. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of the one parameter ('ids'), the description adds crucial semantics: it relates the ids to the number of emails to disclose, and it tells the agent to use the id_atual returned by a prior move operation instead of the old id. This is exactly the kind of parameter meaning that the schema alone cannot convey.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'move um ou mais emails para Itens Excluídos' and explicitly distinguishes this from permanent deletion. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling move tools like outlook_mover_email or outlook_mover_emails, so the agent must infer the unique destination is the key differentiator.

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 workflow requirements: Claude must state the number of emails, clarify recoverability, and ask 'Deseja continuar?' before calling. It also provides a clear exclusion ('nunca chame por inferência') and an exception where re-confirmation is unnecessary. It doesn't compare against alternative move tools, but the when/when-not guidance is otherwise strong.

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