move_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter behaviors like the max_moves safety limit and dry_run preview. It also notes the return value (confirmation message). It could mention error handling (e.g., non-existent mailbox) but is fairly transparent.

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 an intro, parameter list, and return note. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. It could be more concise, but is largely 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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, mutation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema mentioned, the description covers key aspects: parameter explanations, safety limits, and return value. It lacks details on error states or behavior with zero matches, but is otherwise complete.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. Each parameter is explained with its purpose, default, and special usage (e.g., nested mailboxes with '/' separator, subject_keywords matching any keyword). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Move email(s) matching filters from one mailbox to another.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forward, reply, or compose, which have different purposes.

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 when to use the tool, including the dry_run flag for previewing and the only_read flag for skipping unread emails. It also mentions archiving use cases. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide comparisons.

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