outlook_create_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the mutation action without mentioning idempotency, error conditions, permissions, side effects, or return values. The 'Gmail-labels equivalent' hints at typical label behavior but does not substantively explain what happens during creation.

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, tightly crafted sentence that states the action and provides a useful analogy, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. While it correctly identifies the purpose, it omits practical details such as what the agent should expect as a return value, whether the operation is idempotent, and how it integrates with related tools like outlook_list_categories. However, the schema covers parameter semantics, making the description sufficient for basic invocation.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (name, account, color_preset), so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Outlook category.' The parenthetical '(the Gmail-labels equivalent)' provides helpful context and distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_apply_category and outlook_remove_category.

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 implied by the action verb 'create' – one would use this tool to make a new category. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, such as ensuring the category doesn't already exist or that authentication is handled.

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