move_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Move' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the operation is reversible, what happens to the original message (e.g., deletion from source), or error conditions (e.g., invalid UID). The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for a 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should cover more behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility) and usage context to compensate for missing structured data, but it provides only a basic statement of purpose.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (folder, uid, destination) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining folder path formats or UID sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('move') and resource ('a message'), specifying the target ('to another folder'). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_message (destructive) and get_message (read-only), but doesn't explicitly contrast with mark_message (which modifies flags rather than location).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing message UID from list_messages), exclusions (e.g., cannot move to non-existent folders), or comparisons to similar tools like mark_message for organizing messages differently.

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