Move Folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: that on IMAP accounts server-side completion is asynchronous and must be verified with listFolders. It doesn't say whether the operation fails or merges on a name collision, but the async caveat is the most important thing an agent needs.

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, the core action first and the operational caveat second, with no redundant restatement of the title or parameters. Every clause carries information.

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?

With two fully documented parameters, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool and to know that IMAP results are eventually consistent. A note on name-collision behavior or failure modes would close the last gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the note to source URIs from listFolders. The description adds no further meaning about formats, path semantics, or edge cases, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Move a mail folder to a new parent folder') and constrains scope with 'within the same account'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from renameFolder or createFolder, so an agent must infer that moving differs from renaming.

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 same-account restriction and the advice to verify with listFolders on IMAP give some implied usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over renameFolder, or what to do if the destination already contains a folder with the same name.

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