update-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 need not re-state mutation. It adds valuable behavioral constraints: this PATCH operation cannot change senderEmailAddress, and it explains the workaround for display name and SMTP changes. It also mentions the Graph API restriction. This goes beyond annotation-provided info, though it doesn't describe side effects or confirmation requirements, which are partially covered by the confirm parameter.

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 paragraphs plus a tip block, which is slightly verbose but each sentence earns its place. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by alternatives. The tip block condenses the key points. It could be tightened, but it's structured and front-loaded enough to be easily scanned.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what field can be updated, what cannot, and how to achieve related updates. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for an update operation. The confirm gate is documented in the schema. Overall, an agent has enough to call this tool correctly.

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 80%, so most parameters are described in the schema. The description adds concrete payload examples: "Body: { classifyAs: 'focused' } or { classifyAs: 'other' }", which clarifies the exact format expected. It also explains the meaning of inferenceClassificationOverrideId sufficiently in the schema, and the description reinforces the classification value enum. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change the classifyAs field of an override as specified.' It uses a specific verb (change/update) and resource (override), and distinguishes itself from siblings like create-focused-inbox-override and delete-focused-inbox-override by being the update operation. The explicit focus on classifyAs and the prohibition on changing other fields make its scope unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to update classifyAs. It also names alternatives for other scenarios: 'you can use POST to force an update to the name field' and 'deleting the existing override and creating a new one' for SMTP changes. This clearly routes agents to the correct tool based on the desired mutation, leaving no ambiguity.

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