outlook_apply_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the name-not-ID constraint, but does not mention whether the category must already exist, whether applying replaces or adds to existing categories, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and key constraint. No filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is sufficient to understand the core operation and parameter format, but it lacks behavioral context such as idempotency, dependency on existing categories, or what happens with invalid message IDs. Given there is no output schema or annotations, this leaves some gaps for a mutation tool. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 every parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing that category is a name and that message_ids is plural. The account parameter is already explained in the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') with a clear resource ('category to one or more Outlook messages') and adds a critical differentiator: 'by category NAME, not ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_create_category and outlook_remove_category, and the name/ID note disambiguates from potential ID-based operations.

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 implies usage (to apply a category to messages) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as outlook_create_rule for automating categorization or outlook_remove_category for removing. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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