Move Outlook emails to another folder, such as archive, inbox, spam, or a custom folder, by target IDs or the last listing. It organizes messages without deleting them.
Move emails para outra pasta (arquivar = destino arquivo). Não exclui.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alvos | Yes | lista de alvos (ids curtos, 'atual', 'ultimo') ou 'lista' = todos da última listagem | |
| destino | Yes | pasta de destino: inbox, arquivo, spam ou nome de pasta do usuário |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Não exclui' consistently reinforces the non-destructive behavior. It adds little beyond that: permissions, destination-existence handling, and source-folder side effects are not described.
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 no wasted wording. It compactly includes the core action, archival mapping, and non-deletion caveat.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. Minor omissions about destination existence or return behavior are acceptable given the absence of an output schema.
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 coverage is 100% and both 'alvos' and 'destino' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds a useful archive mapping, but provides no extra syntax or behavior for 'alvos', so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource: moving emails to another folder. It also clarifies the archival mapping and non-deletion scope, but does not distinguish this from siblings such as rm, tag, or mk.
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?
Gives one concrete usage mapping, 'arquivar = destino arquivo', and a negative boundary, 'Não exclui'. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like rm or tag, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.