move_emails_batch

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the batch size limit (1-50), restricts messages to 'ordinary' types, and clarifies that all messages must originate from one account and go to one mailbox. This complements the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it, though it does not mention potential partial failures or atomicity.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and key constraints without any fluff. Every word carries meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch operation, 2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential selection criteria: what it does, batch limits, and account/mailbox constraints. However, it leaves some ambiguity around 'ordinary messages' and does not address error handling or atomicity, which would be helpful but is not critical given the annotations and output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'identities' represents the 1-50 messages to move (all from one account) and 'destination_mailbox' is the target mailbox. This adds crucial meaning that the schema property names alone do not convey, and it aligns with the required parameters.

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 action ('Move'), the resource ('ordinary messages'), and the scope ('1-50', 'from one account to one mailbox'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'move_email' by specifying batch size, making the 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 description implies usage for batch moves of 1-50 messages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the single-message sibling 'move_email' or any other alternative. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, so guidance is only implied.

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