move_email

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a useful behavioral fact — email_id is location-based (folder:uid) — which implies the identifier changes once the email is moved. However, it says nothing about the operation's mutating consequences, reversibility, or permissions, which for an un-annotated mutation tool is a notable 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the format note is essential rather than decorative. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-required-param move operation with an output schema present, the description is reasonably close to sufficient. The remaining gaps — dest_folder's expected format and the post-move identity change — are modest but real. An agent could still invoke it incorrectly by passing an invalid dest_folder value, so a 3 is warranted.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it fully documents email_id's format (folder:uid) with a concrete example (INBOX:1). But dest_folder receives no semantic guidance whatsoever — format, allowed values, and naming conventions are left to inference. Compensation is partial, so a baseline-adjusted 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear, specific action — moving an email to a specified folder — and the tool name supplies the implied resource (email). The phrase '指定文件夹' (specified folder) distinguishes it from fixed-destination siblings like archive and trash_email, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when move_email is the right choice. There is no mention of alternatives (archive, trash_email, manage_labels), no preconditions, and no statement of what distinguishes a general folder move from fixed-destination operations. The only context clue is the email_id format note, which is parameter semantics rather than usage guidance.

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