bulk_move_emails

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 safety limit (max_emails=50), dry_run mode for preview, and return type (summary with count). This adequately communicates the tool's behavior, though it could mention that moving removes emails from the source (destructive) and potential side effects like marking as read.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a brief requirements paragraph and a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff. The user preferences line at the end is ambiguous but doesn't detract significantly.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the operation, return value, and constraints well. Minor gaps: no error handling or caution about irreversible moves, and no mention of rate limits or authentication. Still, it's comprehensive enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: it lists defaults (from_mailbox='INBOX', dry_run=False, max_emails=50), explains optional filters (subject_keyword, sender, older_than_days), and notes that max_emails is a safety limit. This adds rich meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Move multiple emails matching filters to a destination mailbox,' clearly stating the verb (Move), resource (multiple emails), and scope (matching filters to destination). This distinguishes it from siblings like move_email (single email) and imap_bulk_move (likely similar but different implementation).

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 explicitly states requirements: both from_mailbox and to_mailbox are required, at least one filter is required, and provides format guidance (e.g., '/' for nested mailboxes). It doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool over move_email or imap_bulk_move.

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