MCP Email Service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires IMAP access' and safety notes about 'account_id', but it does not cover critical aspects like whether the move is reversible, potential rate limits, error handling, or what happens if emails are already in the target folder. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action ('Move emails to a different folder'), followed by necessary context in a single sentence. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., reversibility, side effects), error cases, and what the tool returns, which are crucial for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (email_ids, target_folder, source_folder, account_id). The description adds minimal value by hinting at the purpose of 'account_id' for safety and matching, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as format details or usage examples.

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 clearly states the verb ('move') and resource ('emails to a different folder'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'batch_delete_emails' or 'mark_emails', which might involve similar email operations but with different actions.

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 some context by mentioning 'Requires IMAP access' and hints at prerequisites like 'account_id', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'batch_delete_emails' for deletion or 'mark_emails' for marking). Usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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