icloud-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Move' but does not clarify whether the operation is atomic, whether the email's UID changes (critical for IMAP-style systems), what happens if the target mailbox doesn't exist, or what the return value indicates.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb. However, extreme brevity limits the information provided, preventing a score of 5.

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 3-parameter tool with simple semantics, the description provides minimum viable context. However, given the lack of output schema and annotations, it should ideally disclose success/failure indicators, whether the sourceMailbox defaults to INBOX (mentioned in schema but not description), or error conditions. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (uid, targetMailbox, sourceMailbox all documented), the schema carries the semantic load. The description mentions 'mailbox/folder' which aligns with the parameter names but adds no additional syntax guidance, format details, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Move') and resource ('single email', 'mailbox/folder') to clearly define the operation. The word 'single' effectively distinguishes this from sibling bulk operations (bulk_move, bulk_move_by_sender, etc.), though it does not explicitly reference 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?

The description implies usage scope through 'single email' (suggesting this is for individual items rather than bulk), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over bulk_move for multiple emails, or how it relates to abandon_move or get_move_status.

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