Move a message between folders

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 states the action ('move') but does not explicitly disclose the destructive nature (removing from source), potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. The description merely restates the title's action without adding operational detail.

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 a single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and the key identifier (UID). Every word earns its place; this is exemplary conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens to the source message, whether the move is atomic, or how failures are reported. Given that it changes state, an agent would benefit from knowing the destructive implication and any constraints (e.g., folder existence). The description leaves too much to inference.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (sourceFolder, uid, destFolder) with descriptions. The description mentions 'by UID' which reinforces the uid parameter, but adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific action: moving a single message between folders by UID. The verb 'move' and resource 'message' distinguish it from sibling tools like list_messages, get_message, send_email, and folder operations. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or provide differentiation criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is entirely silent on whether to prefer move_message over copy, delete, or other operations. The context of usage is only implied by the verb.

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