move_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says almost nothing beyond "move". It omits permissions required, whether the destination folder must pre-exist, whether the message keeps its id, and what errors occur — all material for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences with the action stated first and the non-obvious parameter hint second; no filler. The brevity is close to under-specification rather than padding, so it is efficient but slightly thin.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should carry more: destination format details, failure behavior, and the effect on the source folder are all missing. Also, the description is in Swedish while the tool name and sibling tools are English, which is an avoidable inconsistency for an agent.

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 0% and the schema only labels the fields "Message Id" and "Destination", so the description's clarification that destination accepts a folder id OR a well-known name (archive, deleteditems, inbox …) adds genuinely necessary semantics. message_id is left unexplained, but its meaning is self-evident.

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?

"Flytta ett meddelande" states a specific verb (move) plus resource (message), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_messages, read_message or delete_draft. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling (e.g. a copy operation), so it stops short of a 5.

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 no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (must the message exist, must the destination exist), and no note on what happens to the source message. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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