move_email

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

The description mentions a fallback (COPY+EXPUNGE), which may be destructive, but annotations claim destructiveHint=false. This contradiction is not addressed. Additionally, idempotentHint=true is plausible but not explained. The description does not clarify behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action. Could add a bit more context on fallback behavior without excessive length, but still 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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, existence of an output schema (undescribed), and potential behavioral contradictions, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or failure states.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'message between folders', providing no meaning for parameters like uid, account, source_folder, destination_folder. Users must infer from names alone.

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 moves a message between folders, using specific protocol (RFC 6851 MOVE with fallback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_email (copy) and delete_email (delete).

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description (move, not copy or delete), but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this vs alternatives. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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