set_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the single most important trait — existing categories are replaced (destructive overwrite) — which is genuinely valuable and not inferable from any structured field. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown message IDs, whether unknown category names are silently accepted, or permission requirements.

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?

One short sentence, no filler, with the consequential detail (replacement of existing values) placed immediately after the action so it is read before 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destructive semantics are covered. What is missing is the 0%-covered parameter semantics — chiefly whether category names must already exist — which matters for calling this correctly, though the core risk is disclosed.

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 0% and neither parameter is documented. The description implies the two arguments (message, categories) but adds nothing on message_id format, whether categories are free-form strings or must match pre-existing Outlook master categories, or what an empty array means (clearing all categories).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: set Outlook categories on a message. That is clearly distinct from the mutation siblings (move_message, flag_message, mark_read), none of which touch categories. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives, and the description is in Swedish while the tool name and sibling set are English, which adds a small comprehension cost.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus mark_read/flag_message/move_message for organizing mail, and no prerequisites such as categories needing to exist in the mailbox's master category list. The parenthetical '(ersätter befintliga)' is a behavioral warning rather than usage guidance.

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