Criar regra automática

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotence, and the description adds crucial context: it never sends emails to third parties, it requires explicit user confirmation, it applies only to future messages, and it must not be auto-retried on failure. No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by high-value guardrails: no forwarding, confirmation protocol, existing-emails alternative, and failure handling. Every sentence contributes operational or safety-relevant guidance; no filler.

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?

Given a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (confirmation), scope (future emails), exclusions (no forwarding), failure behavior (no retry, diagnostic tool), and sibling differentiation. An agent has what it needs to invoke this tool safely and 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented structurally. The description reinforces the role of condition fields and destination folder, but adds no extra per-parameter constraints, formats, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cria uma regra' for automatically moving future matching emails to a folder. It explicitly distinguishes from forwarding rules ('NÃO cria regras de encaminhamento') and from organizing existing emails, so an agent can clearly identify what this tool does and what it 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria: only for future emails with simple sender/subject conditions. It names the alternative outlook_mover_emails for existing emails, mandates confirmation before running, and specifies using outlook_diagnostico_ultima_falha on failure. This is unusually rich routing guidance.

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