m365_mail_move

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the name conveys, such as whether the move is reversible, whether the original is deleted, or any side effects like moving to trash. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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-parameter tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks any mention of return values, prerequisites beyond the folderId hint, or edge cases (e.g., moving to a non-existent folder). Given the low complexity, it is not severely incomplete, but it does not go beyond the bare minimum.

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 100%: both messageId and folderId have descriptions, with folderId additionally referencing m365_mail_folders to list valid IDs. The description itself does not add parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 'Move an email to a different folder' uses a specific verb ('move') and resource ('email') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like m365_mail_delete, m365_mail_send, or m365_mail_mark_read. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, the folderId parameter schema hints at a prerequisite ('use m365_mail_folders to list'), which gives some implicit usage context. Overall, usage is implied by the name and simple description, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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