move_email

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavior of moving via RFC message-id and referencing a prerequisite tool, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the original is deleted or if there are side effects.

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 sentences without any wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second provides a practical tip. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, but as a mutation, the return value might be implicit. The description is sufficient for understanding the core functionality. However, it could mention what happens on success or failure, but it's not critical for this simple tool.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explicitly instructing to use list_accounts_and_mailboxes for the destination_mailbox parameter, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 a message to a different mailbox by RFC message-id.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and the use of 'by RFC message-id' adds precision. It differentiates from sibling tools like trash_email or set_message_flags.

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 advises using list_accounts_and_mailboxes to get exact mailbox names, which is a clear usage guideline. It implies when to use this tool (when moving a message) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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