Alterar uma regra existente

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly states the tool modifies only the name and/or destination folder, and it requires the agent to show the current rule name and explain changes before executing. This is a valuable user-facing behavior not captured by the annotations or schema.

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 concise sentences, with the core function front-loaded and no filler. The first sentence states the operation and scope; the second provides a necessary interaction requirement. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the primary operation and a key confirmation behavior, and the schema handles the required id. But with no output schema, no mention of what the tool returns, and no guidance on how to obtain/format the destination folder, the context is incomplete for an agent that needs to call this correctly on the first try. The missing at-least-one-field requirement is also a notable gap.

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 only 33% (only 'id' is documented), so the description must compensate for novo_nome and nova_pasta_destino. It partially does this by mapping them to 'nome' and 'pasta de destino', which gives basic semantic meaning. However, it does not clarify the expected format for nova_pasta_destino (folder name vs. folder ID) or indicate that at least one of the optional fields must be supplied, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Altera' with a clear resource ('regra existente') and delimits the exact scope: name and/or destination folder. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_criar_regra, outlook_ativar_regra, and outlook_excluir_regra, so an agent can immediately identify what this tool does and does not do.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing rule, and the schema notes the id comes from outlook_listar_regras, which gives some context. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor exclusions such as 'do not use for creating or activating rules'. The 'mostre o nome atual' instruction is a behavioral step, not a usage-selection guideline.

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