move_messages

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 it only states the high-level action and an efficiency claim. It does not explain whether the operation removes messages from the source mailbox, what happens if some messageIds are invalid, whether the operation is atomic beyond 'single operation,' or any permission/authorization requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a batch 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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds practical guidance about efficiency versus the sibling tool. Every word 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?

The tool has a relatively straightforward batch-move operation with all required parameters documented in the schema, but there is no annotations or output schema. The description omits important execution context such as error handling, source-mailbox behavior after the move, or whether the operation is atomic despite the 'single operation' phrase. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 already describes all four required parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the notion of multiple messages and 'a different mailbox,' but it does not materially expand on parameter semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource—'Move multiple messages to a different mailbox'—and clearly differentiates this batch operation from the alternative move_message by describing it as a single operation and more efficient than calling move_message multiple times. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 clearly sets the context: moving multiple messages at once and doing so more efficiently than repeatedly calling move_message. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use the tool, such as 'for a single message use move_message,', but the efficiency comparison makes the intended use case reasonably apparent.

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