Move a single email from a source iCloud Mail mailbox to a target folder using its UID; optional dry-run preview shows changes before applying.
Move a single email to a different mailbox/folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | Email UID | |
| dryRun | No | If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything | |
| sourceMailbox | No | Source mailbox (default INBOX) | |
| targetMailbox | Yes | Destination mailbox path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Input schema / properties / dryRunAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v2.5.1Does 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 states the mutation ('Move') but omits side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, error behavior, and even the existence of the dryRun safety mechanism that is only documented in the schema. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the operation and scope efficiently without redundant information.
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?
The description states the core action and the schema fully documents parameters, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could have added behavioral context (e.g., dry-run support, mutation side effects) to be more complete; as is, it provides the minimum viable context.
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 all four parameters (uid, sourceMailbox, targetMailbox, dryRun) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond restating the target concept ('different mailbox/folder'), so it meets the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a precise verb ('Move') and resource ('email') with cardinality ('a single'), which implicitly distinguishes it from bulk siblings like bulk_move and bulk_move_by_sender. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.
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 word 'single' implies usage for one email at a time, hinting that bulk operations should use a different tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like bulk_move, and no prerequisites or conditions. It is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.