outlook_categorize_email

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, the tool fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate whether categories are added, replaced, or if they need to exist beforehand. No mention of permissions, side effects, or response details. This is a severe gap for an AI agent.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise. However, conciseness should not come at the expense of useful information; the sentence is too brief to fully inform the agent. It could be restructured to include key details without being verbose.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It lacks context on behavioral aspects like merging behavior, error conditions, and required permissions. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (messageId and categories). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description 'Apply categories to an email' clearly states the action and resource. It is specific enough to understand the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'outlook_flag_email' which applies a flag rather than categories. However, it could be more explicit about what categories are (e.g., tags/labels) and that it modifies the email's existing categories.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'outlook_flag_email' or 'outlook_archive_email'. It does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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