delete-focused-inbox-override

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by disclosing the behavioral consequence: 'Future messages from that sender revert to the Outlook ML classifier's default behavior.' This goes beyond the bare 'delete' and gives the agent a clear understanding of the side effect. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility (covered by destructiveHint) or any authorization requirements, which are reasonable to omit given the annotations.

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 two sentences: a direct statement of the action and a concise tip. The primary verb is front-loaded, and the tip is actionable without extra fluff. There is zero waste; every sentence serves a purpose for correct invocation.

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 destructive operation with one required parameter, the description covers the core behavior, the consequence, and how to obtain the required ID. The sibling set includes list and update versions, so the tool's role is clear. An output schema is absent, so no return format is specified, but that's not unusual for a delete operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly given the schema and 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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on the confirm parameter's behavior or If-Match usage). It only points to list-focused-inbox-overrides for finding the ID, which is a usage hint rather than parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers parameter meaning.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('an override'), and further clarifies it's a Focused Inbox override. The tip explicitly mentions the behavior change (reverting to default sentiment) and distinguishes it from list/create/update siblings. An agent can clearly tell what this tool 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 provides a direct usage hint: 'Use list-focused-inbox-overrides to find the ID first.' This is a concrete prerequisite for calling the tool correctly. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the destructive nature and the alternative (update) are implied. The guidance is adequate for correct invocation, though it could be more explicit about scenarios where deletion might be inappropriate.

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