Add or remove an Outlook category across multiple emails at once, so you can organize or clean up messages in bulk by target list, current message, or last listing.
Adiciona ou remove uma categoria do Outlook em vários emails de uma vez.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cat | Yes | nome da categoria | |
| acao | No | add ou rm | add |
| alvos | Yes | lista de alvos (ids curtos, 'atual', 'ultimo') ou 'lista' = todos da última listagem |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior, which matches a category add/remove. The description adds the useful fact that it operates on many emails in one call, but says nothing about what happens when a category does not yet exist, whether missing categories are created, or what the call returns.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the bulk scope come first. It is efficient, though one extra clause about the add-vs-remove selector or the 'lista' target would have been worth the words.
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 three-parameter bulk mutation with full schema coverage and four annotations, the essentials are covered by structured fields rather than the prose. What remains thin is behavioral detail an agent would want before bulk-tagging: no output shape (none declared) and no note that removing a category from untagged items is a no-op.
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 schema already documents cat, acao, and the alvos oneOf including the 'lista' sentinel. The description adds only the implicit plural framing ('vários emails'), with no syntax, limits, or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb pair (adds or removes), a specific resource (an Outlook category), and the scope (multiple emails at once). An agent can tell this is the bulk-category tagging tool rather than a plain delete or move. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with (e.g., rm), which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the sentence tells you the tool applies categories to several emails at once, suggesting bulk use over the singular siblings. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use this for' statement, and no mention of how it relates to rm or mv when the goal is removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.