move_mail

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'never issues EXPUNGE,' which clarifies the non-destructive side effects (moving without expunging the source). Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description complements rather than contradicts them. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether the source folder's state changes, or any auth/permission requirements beyond the confirm token.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Every word earns its place: the action, the approval requirement, and the EXPUNGE guarantee. This is exemplarily concise.

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 tool is a destructive mutation (destructiveHint=true) with 4 required parameters and 0% schema coverage, so the description bears significant burden. The confirm requirement and EXPUNGE clarification are valuable, but the description omits any guidance on folder naming, UID format, failure behavior, or the relationship between from_folder and to_folder. An output schema exists which may help, but the description itself leaves important operational details unaddressed.

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 0%, and the description only explains the 'confirm' parameter ('requires confirm="MOVE"'). The uid, from_folder, and to_folder parameters are entirely unexplained in prose — no format details for uid, no path conventions for folder names, no interaction semantics between from/to folders. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate but only addresses one of four parameters.

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 states the verb (Move), resource (one UID), and a critical requirement ('after exact user approval'). However, it doesn't distinguish the tool from the sibling 'trash_mail' which is also a mutation moving messages out of folders, and 'execute_batch_actions' may also move messages. The single-UID scope is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 a clear precondition for use (requires exact user approval via confirm='MOVE'), which is strong usage guidance. However, it doesn't explain when to prefer this over trash_mail or batch_move, nor when one would use MOVE versus DELETE/EXPUNGE semantics. The 'after exact user approval' framing helps but exclusions/alternatives aren't addressed.

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