create-outlook-category

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral detail: 'Category names are case-sensitive when applied to messages/events.' This clarifies a potential pitfall. However, it does not disclose other traits like whether duplicate names are rejected or what happens on conflict.

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 sentences plus a tip block, front-loaded with the purpose. It is reasonably concise, but the tip formatting (code block with extra parentheses) could be streamlined. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at the return type (the created category object), but it does not. It details the input body but lacks discussion of errors, pagination, or required permissions. Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning for the main 'body' parameter by noting displayName uniqueness and color mapping to human-readable names. However, it omits includeHeaders and excludeResponse, which lack schema descriptions beyond their names. The description partly compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 'Create an outlookCategory object in the user's master list of categories.' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'create-outlook-contact' (different resource) and 'list-outlook-categories' (different action).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for creating categories vs. using other create tools). The tip includes a mapping of preset colors, but lacks usage context such as prerequisites or restrictions on when to create a category.

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