move_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutating effect (move), optional include_raw behavior, and the return value. However, it does not mention permissions, source-copy deletion, or other side effects beyond the move itself.

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 compact, front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, and organized with Args/Returns sections. Every line earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and the return shape, but omits usage alternatives and potential side-effect caveats. The return type 'trimmed moved message' is descriptive but not fully specified.

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 compensates fully. It explains message_id as a Graph message id, enumerates valid well-known destination names, clarifies mailbox as optional, and defines include_raw. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema.

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 opening sentence 'Move a message to another folder' clearly states the action, resource, and goal. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from batch_move_messages or archive_message, but the singular focus is apparent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_move_messages or archive_message. The destination description enumerates well-known folders but does not state selection criteria or exclusions.

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