outlook_categorize_message

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

The description notes that categories 'replaces the full list', which is a critical behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other traits such as whether the operation is reversible, if it triggers notifications, or any error conditions (e.g., invalid category names).

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 brief and includes a concrete example, which aids quick understanding. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and key nuance (replaces full list), and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic intent and a key behavioral detail. However, it lacks information about valid category values, error handling, and how to retrieve existing categories (e.g., via outlook_list_categories), leaving gaps in completeness.

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% and the description provides no parameter explanations beyond an example. The example illustrates usage but does not clarify the format of message_id or acceptable values for categories. Given two required parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct arguments without prior knowledge.

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 verb 'Set categories' on a 'message', making the tool's core function obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like outlook_reclassify_message or outlook_flag_message, which could cause confusion for an AI agent selecting among many Outlook tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether categories must already exist), when not to use it, or reference to related tools like outlook_list_categories for available categories.

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