Move Emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well. It discloses the non-destructive default, the actual COPY+EXPUNGE mechanism, and the dangerous edge case where pre-existing deleted messages would be permanently removed.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then safety workflow, then mechanism and risk. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 mutating email operation with no annotations, this is complete: it covers default behavior, user validation requirement, protocol limitations, and danger conditions. The existing output schema handles return-value expectations, so nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful operational meaning beyond the schema by explaining the dry_run safety protocol and when it is acceptable to set dry_run=false.

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 verb and resource: 'Déplace des messages d'un dossier à un autre.' It clearly identifies the operation and scope, and is not a tautology of the tool name. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like set_flag or search_emails.

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 explicitly explains the safe usage workflow: dry_run=true by default, and dry_run=false only after user validation. It also gives a concrete condition to avoid use: the tool refuses to operate when the source folder contains pre-existing deleted-marked messages that EXPUNGE would destroy.

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