outlook_move_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('removes from source') and folder value parsing details. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., if folder doesn't exist), permissions, or rate limits, which would make it more transparent.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then provides usage alternatives and parameter guidance, making each sentence earn 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?

Given the tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the operation, distinguishes from siblings, and covers folder parameter options. Missing are any details about return values or error handling, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaningful guidance for the 'folder' parameter (display names, well-known names, Graph IDs, prefer names) but provides no extra info for 'message_id' beyond its title. Partial compensation is achieved.

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 'Move a message to another folder' with the explicit side effect 'removes from source', and distinguishes it from copy and delete tools. This provides a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates from siblings.

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 explicitly tells when to use move vs copy ('Use outlook_copy_message to duplicate without removing the source') and when not to use move for deletion ('For deletion use outlook_delete_message'). It also provides guidance on folder parameter values, including acceptable formats and preference for names.

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