move_email

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds the constraints that the destination must already exist ('existing') and that the message/mailbox are 'ordinary' (not special types), providing some extra context. However, it does not disclose details about source deletion or failure behavior.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose without filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Despite the annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse for a mutation tool with 5 required parameters and no parameter documentation. It lacks context on how to obtain the identifiers, the relationship between uid and uid_validity, and any prerequisites for moving an 'ordinary' message. The tool's overall behavior is underspecified.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'message' and 'destination_mailbox' but does not explain the meaning or format of uid, uid_validity, mailbox, or account_id. For a tool with 5 required params including the non-obvious uid_validity, this is a significant 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 clearly states the specific action ('Move'), the resource ('one ordinary message'), and the destination ('an existing ordinary mailbox'). The word 'one' distinguishes it from the batch sibling move_emails_batch, making its sole purpose unambiguous.

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 singular 'one' implies this tool is for single-message moves, suggesting batch moves should go elsewhere, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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