outlook_remove_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does state the core mutating action (remove a category) and clarifies that matching is by name. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes (e.g., if a message does not have the category), or any authorization requirements. This is a reasonable but not comprehensive disclosure 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundant words and efficiently conveys the essential purpose and key nuance (name-based removal). This is an example of excellent conciseness.

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 tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what happens after removal (e.g., success/failure feedback) or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent without complete context, though the operation itself is straightforward.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by emphasizing 'by category NAME' and implying message_ids is an array ('one or more messages'), but these details are already present or easily inferred from the schema. No new parameter semantics are introduced.

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 action (remove), the resource (category from Outlook messages), and the scope (one or more messages). It also distinguishes by specifying 'by category NAME', which separates it from category operations by ID. This aligns with the sibling tools like outlook_apply_category and outlook_create_category, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: when you need to remove a category from messages, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mentions alternative tools for related operations. The sibling tools such as outlook_apply_category exist but are not referenced, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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