mail_move

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: the operation is scoped to a single message, and the destination must already exist (no implicit folder creation). It says nothing about reversibility or permission requirements.

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 no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the folder hint. Efficient, though the folder hint is compressed enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations gap being filled and 0% parameter coverage, this is only adequate: it never says how to discover folders, whether the move can be undone, or what a failure looks like. The Archive/Trash guidance is a useful start but leaves the agent to infer the discovery step.

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 schema only supplies bare titles for message_id and destination. The description partially compensates by constraining destination to an existing folder and qualifying 'one message', but gives no ID format, no indication of where valid destination values come from, and no error semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Move one message to an existing folder' states exactly what is moved, how many, and the container constraint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mail_search or mail_draft, though it never names them.

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 second sentence guides the archiving/trashing case by telling the agent to use the discovered Archive or Trash folder, implying folders must be located first. It stops short of naming mail_folders as the discovery mechanism or stating when not to use this tool over alternatives.

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