move_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: 'UIDs change on move', which is exactly the kind of warning an agent needs. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, reversibility, or what the operation returns.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by essential usage guidance and a critical behavioral warning. Every sentence 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?

Given five optional-looking parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves too much ambiguous. It does not clarify which parameter is the target folder, whether to pass uid or uids, or how account is resolved. The UID warning and list_folders hint help, but the invocation contract is still underspecified.

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 description must compensate, but it only partially clarifies folder naming. It does not explain the relationship between uid and uids, the role of the source folder parameter versus destination, or how account should be populated. The phrase 'another folder' is not explicitly mapped to the destination property.

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 action: 'Move messages to another folder', clearly identifying the resource (messages) and the operation (moving to a folder). It also gives a concrete example ('to archive them') and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like delete_messages, send_message, or mark_read.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: use an exact folder name from list_folders, which is a useful precondition and directs the agent to a sibling tool. It provides context for when this tool fits, such as archiving, but does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives like delete_messages.

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