move_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value by disclosing the fallback mechanism (MOVE when supported, otherwise COPY + delete + EXPUNGE), which signals a potentially destructive operation. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, failure behavior if the destination is missing, and whether the EXPUNGE is recoverable.

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, tightly written sentence with the operation front-loaded and the implementation nuance parenthesized. Nothing is redundant, though the brevity is partly owed to omitted necessary detail.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It covers the mechanism but leaves parameter meaning, preconditions, and post-move state unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never explains what 'uids', 'folder', 'destination', or 'account' mean, their formats, or how folder/destination relate to each other, leaving four undocumented parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('e-mails') plus a scoping constraint ('para outra pasta da mesma conta'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_email or copy-oriented tools. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 same-account constraint implies when this tool applies versus a hypothetical cross-account move, but no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition is named. Usage has to be inferred from the parenthetical scope note.

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