apply_move

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

Discloses that tool changes mailbox (destructive), requires reauthentication, and logs messages for reversibility via restore_message. With no annotations, the description fully bears transparency burden and does so comprehensively.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose and separate guidelines paragraph. Some slight redundancy (e.g., 'Changes the mailbox' repeats commit notion) but overall efficient and readable.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, prerequisites, and reversibility. Lacks return value details (no output schema) and exact draft_id semantics, but given low parameter count and good annotation coverage, it is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% and parameter 'draft_id' is not explicitly described. The context implies it comes from propose tools but lacks clear explanation of its origin or format, which is a significant gap for an agent.

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?

Description clearly states it commits a move previewed by propose_move/propose_flag_as_junk/propose_delete, using strong verb-resource pairing ('COMMIT a move') and differentiating from siblings by naming the prerequisite propose tools.

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?

Explicitly says only call after user approval, warns against moving based on message content, and mentions requirement for fresh platform authentication prompt. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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