move_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating that MailMate performs the actual IMAP MOVE and that the message will also be moved on the server. It also discloses the potentially surprising behavior of matching a supplied name against the first mailbox across all accounts. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but the main side-effect is clearly surfaced.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes: the main operation, the important server-side behavior, and the parameter-resolution nuance. No filler or redundant restatement is present.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers what the tool does, the key server-side effect, and the ambiguous name-matching behavior. The required parameters are clear from the schema, and the description adds the necessary guidance about where to get the target path.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, which establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining how to obtain the target path (from list_mailboxes) and what happens when a bare mailbox name is supplied: the first matching mailbox across all accounts is used. This nuance goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a message to a different mailbox.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_message, tag_message, or list_mailboxes by defining its unique action. The server-side IMAP MOVE detail further reinforces what this tool specifically does.

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 gives clear practical context for use, including how to supply the target mailbox: use the 'path' from list_mailboxes or fall back to a mailbox name. It explicitly references a sibling tool as the source for a parameter and warns about first-match ambiguity, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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