mail_move_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the move operation and case-insensitivity but omits important details like whether the operation is a true move (copy+delete) or just reassignment, what happens on failure (e.g., invalid IDs), and any permission requirements. The minimal description does not adequately replace missing annotations.

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 concise: two short sentences plus an Args list. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant phrases. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently details parameters. This is an ideal level of conciseness for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 simplicity (2 params, likely simple output), the description covers the basic usage. However, it lacks details on return values (despite an output schema existing), error conditions, and side effects (e.g., whether the source mailbox changes). For a complete picture, the agent may need to infer from the output schema or examples, which are not provided.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains email_ids as 'JMAP email IDs' and mailbox_name as 'case-insensitive', which adds value beyond the schema titles. However, it does not specify constraints like maximum number of IDs, format of JMAP IDs, or what happens if the mailbox does not exist. It partially compensates but could be more thorough.

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 and specifically states the tool moves one or more emails to a mailbox identified by name. It uses a precise verb ('Move') and resource ('emails'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mail_archive_email (archives) and mail_manage_email_labels (manages labels) by focusing on moving to a named mailbox.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., emails must be in some mailbox) or when not to use it (e.g., for archiving, use mail_archive_email). This leaves the AI agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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