imap_move_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose the side effect that the destination folder may be created if missing. However, it does not mention permissions, partial failures for array UIDs, or what happens when the destination is absent and createDestinationIfMissing is false.

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 sentences, no filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the optional behavior is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal: it omits return values, error behavior when the destination is missing, and array/bulk semantics (though the schema documents uid arrays). The schema fills most parameter gaps, but operation-level and result-level context is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the tool description itself repeats none of the parameter details but also does not need to. The examples and 'optionally creates' hint at targetFolder and createDestinationIfMissing but add no meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Move an email') and clarifies scope by naming source/destination folders with concrete examples (INBOX to Taxes/Archive). It also surfaces the tool's unique optional destination-folder creation, which distinguishes it from sibling folder-management and deletion tools.

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 examples imply an organizational/triage use case (moving to Taxes/Archive) but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as imap_delete_email or imap_create_folder, and it gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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