move_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the action and prerequisites, without mentioning side effects (e.g., emails are removed from source), permission requirements, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, with the core purpose in the first sentence and preparatory guidance in the second. No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 is mostly complete for a straightforward move tool: it covers the action, prerequisites, and resources. It does not describe the return value, but an output schema exists. One could argue for a 5, but the lack of result behavior (e.g., success confirmation) keeps it at 4.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'by their email_id' and that email_ids come from list_emails_metadata) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool moves one or more emails between IMAP folders using email_id. It specifies the verb 'move' and the resource 'emails', and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_emails or mark_emails_as_read by its specific action.

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 explicit usage guidance: use list_emails_metadata to get email_id and list_mailboxes to discover available folders. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the prerequisites are clearly outlined.

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