move_email

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the MOVE-vs-COPY+\Deleted+EXPUNGE fallback and, importantly, the post-condition that the message receives a new UID and the old uid is invalidated. It does not mention the EXPUNGE side effect on other flagged messages or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then mechanism, then parameter documentation. The Args block is somewhat boilerplate but earns its place given 0% schema coverage. No redundant or padded sentences.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the important state change (new UID, old uid invalid) and all inputs. What remains unstated is the return value and any error/permission failure modes, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: all four required params are explained, including provenance hints (account from list_accounts, dest_folder from list_folders) and the fact that folder is the message's current location. Minor gap: no note on uid format or whether it must be a string of digits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a message from one folder to another') with unambiguous scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_email or flag_message by virtue of the move semantics, though it never names an alternative tool 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?

The Args block implies prerequisites by pointing at list_accounts and list_folders for valid values, which is useful routing. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when a move is preferable to delete_email plus send, and no mention of caveats such as insufficient permissions or read-only folders.

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