move_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the single most important behavioral fact: the call returns the NEW message id because ids change after a move. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. It still omits permission requirements and the failure/partial-success semantics for batched moves, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return-value gotcha, then the parameter nuance. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the returned value, batch limits, and folder addressing. The remaining gap is error behavior when one of up to 50 ids fails, which matters for a batch mutation but is a secondary concern.

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 67% and the undocumented parameter is destinationFolderId, which the description rescues by explaining it accepts either an id or a well-known name such as archive, deleteditems, or junkemail. The id/ids exclusivity and the 50-item cap merely restate the schema, but the folder-name semantics are genuine added meaning.

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?

"Move a message to another folder" states a specific verb and resource, which cleanly separates it from read-side siblings like get_message or search_messages. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from delete_message or bulk_action, which are the closest neighbors in the sibling list, 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?

Usage is implied by the verb – an agent wanting to relocate a message will land here – but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the caller whether to prefer this over bulk_action for multi-message moves, nor what happens on partial failure when several ids are supplied.

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