outlook_batch_triage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful batch constraint (single $batch call, 20-message cap), but says nothing about partial-failure behavior, ordering, or error handling for a multi-item mutation, which is the main behavioral question here.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then action values, then a concrete example, then value semantics and the hard cap. No filler sentences; each line adds information the schema lacks.

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 three-required-param batch mutation with no output schema and no enum enforcement, the description covers inputs well but omits any indication of what comes back (per-message results? aggregate success?) and how over-cap or invalid action inputs are handled.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it names the valid action values (move/flag/categorize/mark_read) and explains that `value` is the action target with per-action meaning, plus an inline example showing message_ids usage. Weakness: "status for flag/mark_read" is vague and no action enum exists in the schema.

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 specific verb (triage) and resource (up to 20 messages in one $batch call) and enumerates the four supported actions. It is distinguishable from per-message siblings like outlook_move_message or outlook_flag_message by the batching scope, though it never explicitly says so.

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 batch framing and the "hard cap of 20" imply when to reach for this over single-message tools, but no explicit rule is given (e.g., use this instead of outlook_move_message when handling multiple messages). No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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