abandon_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: partial irreversibility ('Emails already moved will not be returned to source') and side effects (enabling new operations). It does not, however, clarify the final state of the abandoned operation or permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose, second provides usage constraint, third discloses irreversibility consequence. Information is front-loaded and each 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?

For a zero-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers essential safety warnings regarding data loss. It could be improved by clarifying the post-abandonment state visible to get_move_status, but adequately covers the critical user-facing consequence.

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 input schema contains zero parameters (empty object). Per rubric guidelines, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately makes no parameter claims, matching the schema structure.

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 specifies the verb (abandon), resource (in-progress move operation), and outcome (so a new one can start). It effectively distinguishes from sibling move operations (bulk_move, move_email) which initiate moves rather than aborting them.

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?

Provides explicit safety constraint: 'Only use if you are certain the operation should not be resumed.' This establishes when-not-to-use versus attempting to resume. However, it omits explicit reference to get_move_status as the logical prerequisite for verifying move state before abandonment.

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