copy_email

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint false). Description adds 'without removing the original', which is consistent but adds little beyond that. No disclosure of other behaviors (e.g., idempotency, folder existence).

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Efficient but lacks depth.

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 mutating tool with multiple parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief. Lacks details on error handling, return value (despite output schema existing), and prerequisites like folder existence.

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 description must compensate. However, description does not explain any parameters. Parameter names (uid, source_folder, etc.) are somewhat self-explanatory but no additional details on format, required constraints, or defaults.

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?

Description clearly states the action (copy) and resource (email message to another folder). Distinguishes from move_email sibling by stating 'without removing the original'.

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?

Description implies when to use (copying vs. moving) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like move_email or provide context on when not to use.

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