sch_move_mail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers unusually good behavioral detail: it discloses the server-capability fallback chain (UID MOVE vs. UID COPY + \Deleted + UID EXPUNGE vs. bare EXPUNGE). It omits reversibility, permission/authentication requirements, and error behavior when the move fails partway.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by implementation detail and then an Args block. The IMAP fallback sentence is the only slightly dense part, but it earns its place by explaining non-obvious server-dependent behavior.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the remaining gaps: prerequisites, addressing constraints, defaults for both optional parameters, and the fallback execution path. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 fully compensate, and it does: msg_id is specified as a single UID with ranges/lists explicitly refused, dest_folder is the target name, source_folder defaults to INBOX, and account is explained as a credentials.json key with its own default resolution rule.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Move), a precise resource (one message), and both endpoints (source_folder to dest_folder), with the addressing scheme (UID) called out. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like sch_send_mail or sch_get_mail without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to siblings for prerequisites: use sch_create_folder if the destination does not exist, and msg_id comes from sch_list_mail / sch_search_mail. It does not state any when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., that it cannot move multiple messages), so it falls just short of full guidance.

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