copy-mail-message

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

The description states 'Copy a message,' which implies a non-destructive operation, but the annotations include destructiveHint=true. This contradiction undermines transparency. The description fails to reconcile or clarify this inconsistency, and provides minimal behavioral details beyond the returned copy.

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 concise with two sentences plus a tip, front-loading the main action. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and to the point without unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, the body format, return value, and an alternative tool. It does not detail the optional parameters (includeHeaders, excludeResponse) but those are covered in the schema. Missing some behavioral context but generally adequate.

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?

With 75% schema coverage (3 of 4 parameters described), the description adds value by explaining the 'body' parameter with examples for DestinationId (e.g., inbox, archive) and stating the return value. It does not further explain the other parameters (messageId, includeHeaders, excludeResponse) which are already described in 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 clearly states 'Copy a message to a folder within the user's mailbox.' It uses a specific verb (copy) and resource (mail message), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'move-mail-message' for moving instead of copying.

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 advises when to use this tool and when to use the alternative 'move-mail-message', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention other scenarios or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), which would make it a 5.

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