move_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say what happens if the folder does not exist, whether the folder is auto-created, what permissions are required, or whether the move is reversible. Only the implicit 'move = removed from source folder' semantics can be inferred from the verb.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical archive note earns its place by resolving a likely ambiguity. No filler, though the terse mixed-language phrasing is marginally harder to parse than a single consistent sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with only two required parameters the surface area is small. Still, the definition leaves the 'id' parameter and failure/folder-existence behavior undefined, which matters for a destructive-ish mutation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for to_folder by explaining that names come from list_folders and defining the archive convention, but the required 'id' parameter is never explained (message ID? thread ID?). Half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('move email') plus the destination concept (a folder), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_email or mark_email. It also clarifies the 'archive' case. It stops short of naming sibling tools to contrast with, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives one useful prerequisite: to_folder values must come from list_folders. However, it offers no guidance on when to move versus mark or delete an email, and no explicit when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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