move_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses filtering behavior, safety limits (max_moves), dry_run, only_read, and return type (confirmation message). This is sufficient for an agent to understand side effects and constraints.

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 well-structured with a brief overview followed by a detailed Args list. It is concise without being terse, though there is minor redundancy in explaining both subject_keyword and subject_keywords. Overall, it remains clear 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?

Given 10 parameters, only 2 required, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary details: parameter explanations, usage examples, and return type. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 provides thorough explanations for all 10 parameters, including defaults, optionality, and special syntax (e.g., '/' for nested mailboxes). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 specifies the action (move), resource (emails), and context (between mailboxes), using strong verbs and concrete details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like forward_email or reply_to_email, as no other sibling focuses on moving emails.

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 provides explicit guidance on using dry_run for previews, only_read for selective moves, and archiving to 'Archive'. It also explains nested mailbox separators. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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