outlook_move_message

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavior: moving removes the message from the source folder, and deletion should use a different tool. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but with annotations providing the safety profile this is a meaningful addition.

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 front-loaded with the core move semantics, then efficiently covers alternatives and folder naming. Every sentence adds useful routing or parameter information without repetition.

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 two-parameter move tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, alternatives, and folder naming rules. Minor gaps such as message ID format or destination-folder existence requirements remain, but no critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 the description must compensate. It strongly documents the `folder` parameter by explaining accepted display names, well-known names, Graph IDs, and a preference for names; `message_id` is not described but its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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 and resource: move a message to another folder, and immediately clarifies that this removes it from the source. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from outlook_copy_message and outlook_delete_message, so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use outlook_copy_message to duplicate without removal, and use outlook_delete_message for deletion rather than moving to deleteditems. This directly answers when to use this tool versus its closest alternatives.

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