outlook_categorize_message

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the crucial detail that categories are fully replaced rather than appended — behavior not captured by the annotations. It does not, however, spell out the consequence of omitting previously set categories or any auth/rate-limit context.

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 lines with the core semantic constraint front-loaded and a concrete example that shows valid argument shapes. No filler sentences.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one non-obvious behavior (replacement) plus a usage example. Minor gaps remain around message_id format and error behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it names both parameters in the example and explains that 'categories' is a full replacement list, which is meaningful. message_id is left entirely to inference, so it does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 (Set) and resource (categories on a message) and clarifies the replace-list semantics, which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it complements or contrasts with (e.g. outlook_list_categories), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 parenthetical '(replaces the full list)' implies when this tool is appropriate versus an additive categorization call, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives. Usage is only implied.

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