outlook_delete_inbox_override

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Delete' is consistent with that. However, it adds nothing beyond the annotations — no mention of irreversibility, whether the rule can be recreated, or what happens to messages previously routed by the rule.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the identifying parameter are both stated immediately.

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 one-parameter delete with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only missing piece is how to discover a valid override_id, which would help an agent call it correctly without a failed attempt.

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% for the single override_id parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It does say the rule is deleted 'by its ID', which clarifies the identifier role, but does not indicate the ID format or where to source it.

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 (Delete) and a precisely-scoped resource (Focused Inbox per-sender override rule) plus the identifier used. It is clearly distinct from outlook_list_inbox_overrides and outlook_set_inbox_override, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus set_inbox_override or how to obtain a valid override_id (e.g., via outlook_list_inbox_overrides). The usage is only implied by the name and verb.

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