Moves an email to a specified folder by providing its ID and destination folder ID. Optionally target a different mailbox to organize emails across accounts.
Move an email to a specific folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emailId | Yes | ||
| mailbox | No | Target Outlook email address / mailbox. Defaults to primary configured user email if omitted. | |
| destinationFolderId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the email will be moved, but does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the move is reversible, what happens to the email in its source folder, or what the response contains.
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 filler. It efficiently communicates the core operation and destination in six words.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to identify the email, how to obtain a valid destination folder ID, or what a successful move returns, leaving an agent to rely on implicit naming conventions.
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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate: it adds no meaning for emailId or mailbox, and 'specific folder' merely mirrors destinationFolderId. The parameter names are self-descriptive, but the description provides almost no additional semantic value.
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 clear action ('Move an email') and a destination ('to a specific folder'), so an agent can identify the resource and operation. It is distinguishable from sibling email tools like send_email or mark_email_read, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against any sibling.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions such as 'do not use for drafts' or 'use get_email_folders first to resolve a folder ID'. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.