move_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a critical trait: it uses MOVE when the server supports it, otherwise falls back to COPY + delete + EXPUNGE. This tells the agent the operation can be destructive and server-dependent. However, it stops short of warning about partial-failure scenarios or the permanence of EXPUNGE.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key fallback behavior. Every phrase earns its place with no filler, while still covering both what the tool does and its most important behavioral nuance.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves significant gaps: uids is undefined, return values are unaddressed, and the irreversible EXPUNGE consequence is only implied, not stated. The fallback disclosure is strong, but it cannot compensate for these missing pieces.

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 0%, and the description adds almost no parameter meaning. 'Para outra pasta' hints that destination is the target folder, but uids (an array of integers) is entirely unexplained – an agent would not know these are IMAP message identifiers tied to the source folder, and folder is never explicitly stated as the source.

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 action ('Move e-mails para outra pasta' – move emails to another folder) with a clear verb, resource, and target. It is not a tautology and the action is distinct from siblings like delete_email or set_flags, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., source and destination folders must exist), and no exclusions or conditions. The MOVE-versus-COPY fallback detail is behavioral implementation, not usage direction.

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