imap_bulk_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It exposes the 500-message cap but does not state that moving removes messages from the source mailbox, what happens on partial failure, or whether the operation is atomic. With no annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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, efficient sentence that begins with the action and resource, includes the key limit, and has no filler. It is well-structured and high-value for its length.

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?

The schema and output schema are rich, covering parameter meanings and return structure, so the description does not need to restate those. However, with no annotations, the description is still too thin: it does not help an agent decide when to use this over imap_move_message or imap_search_and_move, and it does not communicate source-removal consequences or error-handling expectations.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters and all constraints (including that message_ids must come from the same mailbox), so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description's only extra contribution is the batch limit, which is a useful clarification but not beyond what provenance the schema provides.

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 says 'Move up to 500 messages to a mailbox in one operation', which is a specific verb (move), resource (messages), and scope (up to 500, one mailbox). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like imap_move_message (single message) and imap_search_and_move (search-then-move).

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 state when or when not to use this tool. It is not compared with imap_move_message, imap_search_and_move, or other alternatives, and there is no prerequisite or context direction. The only implied guidance is the bulk limit, which is not enough to help an agent pick between tools.

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