confirm_move_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (moving the email), the success response, and several error conditions: invalid, expired, or already-used token, and email changed since preparation. This is substantial transparency, though it doesn't detail reversibility or permission requirements.

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 four concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then briefly explains the action, return value, and failure modes. Every sentence adds value.

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-step confirmation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: the precondition (token from prepare), the action (move to specified folder), the return (success message), and error cases. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the token originates from prepare_move_email and that the email_id must match the prepare step, clarifying the relationship between parameters and the workflow.

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: it confirms and executes moving an email using a token from prepare_move_email. It specifies the resource (email) and the action (move), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_delete_email and confirm_archive_email.

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 clearly implies this is a follow-up step to prepare_move_email, stating it uses a token from that step and moves to the folder specified there. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the token-based flow provides strong contextual guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, but sibling similarities are handled by the naming and token reference.

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