Move messages

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description should add context beyond that. It adds nothing — no mention of source-folder removal semantics, partial-failure behavior with up to 500 UIDs, or what happens on an invalid destination path.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste; the destination format clarification is the highest-value detail and it is placed right after the verb.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal: it omits return behavior, the 500-UID batch limit, and error handling for invalid roles or paths. Annotations cover the safety profile, but an agent would still be guessing about outcomes.

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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema, including the role-or-path convention for folder and destination. The description restates the destination format but adds no new meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Move messages to another folder") and clarifies the destination form, which is more than the title alone. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like mark or create_draft, so an agent still has to infer that this is the relocation operation rather than a flag change.

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?

Usage is implied by "move... to another folder", but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer mark or search_messages, and no prerequisites. The destination format hint is the only operational guidance offered.

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