Pré-visualizar uma ação no Outlook

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces that no email is changed and adds concrete behavior: validation, counting affected items, and generating a Portuguese explanation. It does not describe edge cases or error behavior, but the extra context is meaningful.

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 punchy sentences front-load the read-only behavior and core purpose, with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the emphatic 'NÃO altera nenhum email' is a useful guardrail.

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 small preview tool with complete parameter schemas and safety annotations, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns (a Portuguese explanation to show the user). The lack of an output schema is partly compensated by the description's explicit statement that it mounts the explanation; still, error/validation failure behavior is unspecified.

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 the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter details. The description loosely maps to parameters by mentioning 'seleção de emails' (ids) and 'pasta de destino' (destino), but it adds little beyond the already complete schema, and it omits the 'itens_excluidos' action from its prose.

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 and resource: it validates an email selection and destination folder, counts affected items, and builds a Portuguese explanation before batch move/archive or rule creation. It clearly separates this preview tool from mutating siblings by emphasizing 'somente leitura' and 'NÃO altera nenhum email'.

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?

It states when to use the tool: before moving/archiving in batch or creating a rule, and says the generated explanation must be shown to the user. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the implicit read-only contrast with execution tools.

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