move_messaging_messagesMove JMS messages between queues in SAP Cloud Platform Integration by invoking the MoveMessagingMessages function import, returning the server response.
Move JMS messages between queues via the MoveMessagingMessages function import (POST). Returns the server response string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the HTTP method (POST) and return type (server response string). It does not elaborate on side effects beyond the implied destructive move, but given annotation coverage the additional context is moderate.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and return value with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every part earns its place.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and a destructive annotation, the description covers the action, mechanism, and return type well. It could briefly mention the destructive effect, but annotations already carry that warning, leaving no critical gaps.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and it adds context about the underlying function import without being misleading.
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 ('JMS messages between queues'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like retry_messaging_messages and get_messaging_messages by specifying the move-between-queues behavior.
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 usage is implied by the purpose statement: use this tool to move JMS messages between queues. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as retry_messaging_messages or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.