outlook_create_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the requirement of at least one criterion and one action, and notes that actions apply automatically, but it does not disclose side effects like immediate activation, rule precedence, or modification/deletion limitations. The forward_to warning lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

Three sentences, zero wasted words. It front-loads the main action, adds a clarifying analogy, and states a key constraint. Each sentence 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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core idea, the requirement of criteria+action, and the automatic behavior. It misses some context like whether rules apply to existing messages or only new ones, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and main constraints.

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 100% with meaningful property descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description introduces the concept of criteria vs. actions, which adds high-level meaning, but it does not map specific parameters to those roles beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an Outlook inbox rule'. It further clarifies by calling it 'the Gmail-filter equivalent' and describes its function of matching messages by criteria and applying actions, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_read or outlook_draft.

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 through 'Gmail-filter equivalent' and the criteria/action behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or list excluded scenarios. It gives context but lacks direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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