move_thread

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

The description states the action (move) without adding significant behavioral details beyond the annotation destructiveHint=false. It does not disclose whether the move is reversible, whether permissions are required, or what happens to the original location. However, the annotation already covers the non-destructive nature.

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 very concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It front-loads the core action and provides immediate guidance on when to use it versus the alternative, with no unnecessary words.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the core functionality and when to apply it. It could mention default behavior of acrossFolders or return value, but it is largely complete for a moving operation.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, such as how messageId identifies the thread and that acrossFolders searches additional folders. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 identifies the tool's action (move thread), the method (using RFC 5322 Message-ID), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool apply_thread_action which is preferred when a local threadId is available.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (when you have the raw Message-ID) and when to prefer the alternative (apply_thread_action with action 'move' when you have a local threadId from get_threads or get_actionable_threads).

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