move_emails

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

Annotations already convey destructiveness and non-idempotency, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: partial or ambiguous effects are reported per-ID with succeeded/failed/unknown status, and operations are not retried. This gives the agent a clear picture of outcome handling.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes value (prerequisites and outcome behavior). No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Despite having no output schema visible, the description covers the key operational aspects: the action, the required prior calls, and how failures are reported. For a mutation tool with partial effects, this is complete and actionable.

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 description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., IDs come from list_emails_metadata). It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 states a specific action (move) on a specific resource (emails) with a destination (between IMAP folders). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_emails, archive_emails, and set_email_flags.

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 explicitly directs users to call list_emails_metadata and list_mailboxes first, establishing clear prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to delete vs. move), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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