move_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and does not disclose whether the original emails are removed from their source location, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how thread_ids and message_ids interact when both are supplied. This lacks transparency for a mutating operation.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with seven parameters and no other documentation; the brevity is not matched by structured or additional explanatory content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—seven parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage—the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to identify which emails to move, what the folder-related flags mean, or how archive behavior is triggered. An agent would be guessing on critical invocation details.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the seven parameters. It does not explain dest_folder_id, folder_id, is_archive, thread_ids, message_ids, or is_folder_specific. Only 'Move emails' implicitly relates to message_ids/thread_ids, but the description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the parameter titles already present in 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Move emails to different folder.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like send_email, list_emails, mark_emails_as_read, and delete_email. It is somewhat generic because it does not clarify whether 'different folder' includes archive or how the source folder is selected, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that delete_email should be used for removal, mark_emails_as_read for read-state changes, or that move_emails is specifically for relocating messages. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are given.

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