email_batch_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a mutating operation but the description doesn't state whether the move is atomic (all-or-nothing), what happens if some emailIds fail, whether it confirms each email was found before moving, or whether it permanently alters mailbox state. Given zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short at two sentences, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and a value-add note in the second. No wasted words. However, given the tool's mutating nature and nuanced sourceFolder behavior, some added context could be justified, making it slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

This is a batch mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and only 25% schema description coverage. The description fails to address critical context: whether the operation is atomic, error handling for partial failures, prerequisites (sourceFolder for IMAP/iCloud), and behavior with already-moved emails. Given the tool's destructive/mutating nature and low schema coverage, significantly more behavioral context is needed.

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 only 25% — only sourceFolder has a description in the schema. The description itself doesn't explain any parameters beyond implying targetFolder and emailIds. While the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory (emailIds, targetFolder, accountId), the nuanced sourceFolder behavior for IMAP/iCloud is only documented in schema and not reinforced. The description adds minimal param value 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 tool moves multiple emails to a folder at once, with a specific verb (move), resource (emails), and scope (batch vs individual). It distinguishes from the sibling email_move by emphasizing batch operation and efficiency. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling differentiation (email_move) as an alternative, only implies speed advantage.

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 says 'much faster than individual moves,' implying when to choose this over single-email moves, but that's implicit rather than explicit. There's no guidance on when NOT to use it, no mention that sourceFolder has special requirements (required for IMAP/iCloud per the schema), and no mention of batch size limits or failure behavior with partial moves.

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