Mover um email

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

It discloses important non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: the email leaves the current folder but is not deleted, its ID may change after the move, and subsequent actions must use the returned id_atual instead of the old ID. This materially changes how an agent should chain follow-up calls.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The embedded user-facing script adds length but is justified because it specifies the required pre-execution announcement and reinforces the side-effect expectation. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with safety annotations already present, the description covers the action, side effects, return identifier, and follow-up behavior. Even without an output schema, the essential id_atual contract is clearly stated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail for the id parameter: it comes from a prior listing/search and may change after moving, requiring the returned id_atual for later actions. This is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 a specific action and resource: moving one email to another folder ('Move um email para outra pasta'). It is not a tautology and the singular 'um email' hints at scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like outlook_mover_emails or mover_item.

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 clear execution guidance: announce which email is being moved and the destination before acting, and use the returned id_atual for any follow-up actions. It provides clear context but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as outlook_arquivar_email or outlook_mover_emails.

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