Move messages

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral context: Outlook assigns new ids and the result maps old to new. This goes beyond annotations and is essential for interpreting results.

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 two sentences plus a note, all front-loaded with the main action and limit. The note about id reassignment is placed after the main action but is concise and high-value. Zero waste.

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 two simple parameters, the description covers the essential behavior (move, limit, folder format, id mapping) and the alternative for bulk moves. It doesn't mention error handling, but with an output schema present (though not shown) and moderate complexity, it's sufficient.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the folder parameter can be a name, path, or id, which is not in the schema's generic 'Destination folder' text.

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 verb 'Move' and resource 'messages', with limits (up to 500 ids) and destination format (folder name/path/id). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling mail_bulk_by_sender by naming it, so an agent can distinguish without opening other schemas.

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?

It states the use case ('Used for filing') and gives an explicit exclusion: 'To move every message from a sender, prefer mail_bulk_by_sender.' This provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use condition with the alternative named.

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