Mails verschieben

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the same-account constraint and specifies the destination folder type, but does not mention side effects such as source message removal, target mailbox existence requirements, or failure behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple 4-parameter move operation, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to make a correct call. However, it lacks usage differentiation from mail_move_to_trash and does not disclose behavioral caveats, which matters given the absence of a safety annotation and output schema.

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?

The schema already describes account, mailbox, and targetMailbox; uids is self-explanatory as an array of message identifiers. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but with 75% schema coverage the structured fields carry the load adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verschiebt') and resource ('Nachrichten') with a clear destination ('in einen anderen IMAP-Ordner des gleichen Accounts'). This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like mail_move_to_trash by emphasizing a general folder within the same account.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_move_to_trash. It only defines the operation itself, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the tool name and sibling list.

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