yahoo_move_mail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses the server-dependent execution path (UID MOVE, else UID COPY + \Deleted + UID EXPUNGE, else bare EXPUNGE), which is real behavioral context an agent cannot infer. It omits auth/permission requirements and does not say the source message is removed, but the mechanism disclosure is unusually rich.

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-loads the action, then the mechanism, then prerequisites, then an Args block. Every sentence earns its place, though the multi-line protocol explanation is dense enough to be slightly heavy for a single-field move.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Prerequisites, parameter semantics, and the fallback mechanism are covered; only auth/permission expectations are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all four parameters: msg_id as a single UID with ranges/lists refused, dest_folder as target name, source_folder defaulting to INBOX, and account as an accounts.json key with a default. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 one message') plus the addressing scheme ('addressed by UID') and source/destination folders. An agent can distinguish this from yahoo_delete_mail, yahoo_empty_folder, or yahoo_list_mail without opening any 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?

Gives prerequisites clearly: the destination folder must already exist and yahoo_create_folder should be used first if needed, and it points to yahoo_list_mail / yahoo_search_mail as the source of the UID. It does not state when another tool (e.g. delete or copy) is preferred, so it stops just short of full when-not guidance.

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