messagerie_deplacer

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the destination constraint (inbox or personal folder), which is modest added value — it says nothing about behavior with invalid ids or partial failures. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentence, destination constraint front-loaded and no filler. However, brevity here borders on under-specification for a mutation tool rather than true economy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits error/edge-case handling and the relationship to sibling operations. Nothing critical is missing to invoke it, but coverage is thin.

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 50% and both parameters carry descriptions in $defs, but the description echoes the destination semantics of `vers` without adding format or syntax detail. It doesn't clarify the multi-message nature of `ids` beyond implying plural. Baseline 3 given the schema does most of the work.

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 (déplacer) and resource (messages) plus the destination scope (inbox or personal folder), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as messagerie_marquer or messagerie_restaurer, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. An agent must guess how this differs from messagerie_marquer (mark) or messagerie_restaurer (restore-to-inbox), which are adjacent concepts 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.