restart_outlook

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequence the annotation cannot express: unsaved drafts are lost. It also discloses the consent requirement and the fact that the restart is a force-quit, which implies abrupt termination rather than graceful shutdown.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and rationale, followed by the risk and the trigger condition. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 parameterless, side-effecting tool with an output schema present, the description covers action, motivation, data-loss risk, consent requirement, and the exact diagnostic precondition. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline for a parameterless tool 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?

States a concrete verb pair (force-quit and restart) on a specific resource (Outlook classic) and names the failure mode it addresses (broken COM connection). An agent can immediately tell this apart from sibling read tools like list_events and get_event.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: only after the user has agreed, and only after a fetch failed with a COM error. This is a clear when-to-use gate with an implicit when-not (do not call speculatively or without consent).

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