Pilot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to state that this is a destructive operation (removes from source), whether it preserves email metadata, or error conditions like invalid destination mailboxes.

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 a single six-word sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is maximally efficient and front-loaded with the critical action and target.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero documented parameters (likely a schema error), the description inadequately covers necessary context. It omits safety warnings about data loss, success/failure indicators, and whether the operation is reversible.

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 contains zero parameters (empty properties object), which triggers the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description cannot add parameter semantics where none exist in the schema, though this schema emptiness is itself problematic for a move operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('move') and identifies the target resource ('different mailbox'), clarifying the scope beyond just the tool name. However, it does not distinguish from similar operations like copying or forwarding emails available in sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copying vs. moving), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring the destination mailbox to exist or permissions needed to modify the source location.

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