outlook_move_to_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It does an excellent job by warning that 'moved messages get NEW message IDs'—a critical, non-obvious behavior—and clarifies it is not a permanent delete. Missing are details like reversibility or permission requirements, but the most impactful behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 very concise, using two short sentences plus a note to convey the core action, a negative clarification, and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the key point is front-loaded.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it doesn't do, and a crucial side-effect. It lacks error-handling or response-format details, but given the simplicity, these are not necessary for a basic understanding. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters are well-documented in the input schema (100% coverage): 'account' notes the default, and 'message_ids' describes the array of IDs to move. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Soft-delete: move messages to a 'To Be Deleted' folder.' It uses a specific verb (move) and resource (messages to a folder), and distinguishes itself by explicitly saying it does NOT delete or trash messages. This differentiates it from deletion-related tools and is unmistakable in intent.

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 implies the tool is for soft-deleting messages by moving them to a specific folder, and the clarification 'Does NOT delete or trash messages' provides a boundary for when not to use it for permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for permanent deletion or other actions, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance only implicit.

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