Mover correo a otra carpeta

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minor context about moving messages, but does not go beyond annotations in disclosing side effects, permissions, or edge cases. It provides adequate but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core action and provides useful examples. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration or repetition. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose, gives examples, and relies on the schema for parameter details. However, it does not explicitly clarify that only the enum folder values are allowed, and the 'follow-up folder' example could mislead users since it is not an available enum value. Additionally, it does not mention that moving to 'deleteditems' is effectively an archive/delete action, though the schema does. Overall, it is adequate but with minor gaps.

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 itself does not add parameter-specific details; it merely mentions moving to 'another folder' and gives generic examples. The schema already documents the folder enum and itemId, so the description adds no significant semantic value 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's function: 'Mueve un mensaje a otra carpeta del buzón' (Moves a message to another mailbox folder). It specifies a distinct action (move) and resource (message), setting it apart from sibling tools like send, reply, or flag. The examples ('archivar, mover a una carpeta de seguimiento') further clarify intended use.

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 implies usage through examples (archiving, follow-up organization) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks clear exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools. This is enough for an implied understanding, but not explicit guidance.

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