imap_bulk_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains the moving action, safety limit (max_moves), dry_run option, progress logging to a file, and config dependency. It does not detail authorization or reversibility but covers key aspects.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, context, config note, then a clear parameter list, and returns summary. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, and output summary. With an output schema present, the brief return note is acceptable. It lacks only advanced details (e.g., auth specifics) but is complete for practical use.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed parameter explanations (purpose, type, default) in the 'Args' section, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states the tool moves emails between IMAP folders, explicitly notes it's fast for Proton Bridge, and distinguishes from AppleScript. It also mentions optional sender filtering, clearly defining the specific action and resource.

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 provides context on when to use (fast bulk moves for large mailboxes) and mentions progress logging and config requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid or compare directly with sibling tools like 'move_email' or 'bulk_move_emails'.

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