Move email

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

The destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations already communicate that this mutates state, and the description adds useful context: it operates on exactly one message and stays within the same account. However, it does not explicitly state that the message is removed from the source mailbox, leaving that important effect implied by 'move' rather than stated.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical lookup prerequisite is placed second. Every sentence adds 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 two-parameter tool with annotations already covering destructive behavior, the description is nearly complete: it defines the operation, limits scope to one message and one account, and tells the agent where to obtain the destination ID. The only notable omission is the source of messageId and return-value behavior, but no output schema exists and those are minor for a move action.

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 effectively explains destinationMailboxId as opaque and sourced from list_mailboxes, but it does not explain where messageId comes from or confirm that both IDs are opaque API identifiers. The field names are reasonably self-explanatory, so this is adequate with a clear gap.

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 states a specific action: 'move one message to a mailbox in the same account.' It clearly identifies the resource (one email message) and scope (same account), and the verb 'move' distinguishes it from related sibling tools like mail_copy and mail_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?

It gives a clear usage directive ('Use this to move one message...') and a practical prerequisite ('Obtain the opaque destination id from list_mailboxes'). It does not explicitly call out when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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