m365_move_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and it does not meet it. It never says whether this is a move vs copy, whether the source folder/email is destroyed, what happens if the destination folder does not exist, or what permissions are required for a mutation on a mailbox.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded, which is good, but the single sentence is truncated mid-word ('on the...'), leaving the guidance incomplete rather than concise. Nothing about the structure is wasteful, but the text is unfinished.

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 a mutation on email with no annotations, an empty parameter schema, and no output schema, the description needed to explain inputs and side effects. Instead it stops mid-sentence, so an agent cannot call this tool correctly from the definition alone.

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?

The input schema declares zero properties, so there is literally nothing for the description to supplement, but that empty schema also means the agent has no way to know it must supply message identifiers and a destination folder. The description mentions 'another folder' but gives no hint about how the target folder or the emails to move are addressed.

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 ('moved') and resource ('emails of their Microsoft 365 / Outlook account') with the destination scope ('another folder'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling send/read tools. However, the sentence is cut off mid-clause and never distinguishes it from the near-duplicate siblings move_email or outlook_move_email.

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 'Use this when the user wants...' phrasing gives a usable trigger condition, which is more than most siblings offer. But there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites (account connection, folder existence), and no pointer to the many alternative move tools in the sibling list.

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