outlook_delete_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description does add real value by disclosing the recoverable-default / permanent-flag split, but says nothing about behavior on a missing message_id or whether permissions or mailbox scope affect deletion.

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 effect and its reversible default, followed by the anti-pattern warning. Nothing redundant.

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 destructive tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete: the soft/hard distinction and the sibling exclusion are the essentials. Only gaps are message_id provenance and error behavior, which are modest.

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. It fully explains `permanent` (default soft delete, True = hard delete) but leaves `message_id` entirely undocumented — its source (list/read/search siblings) and format are left to inference.

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 and resource ("Delete a message") and immediately names the sibling it must not be confused with: outlook_move_message(folder="deleteditems"). An agent can pick it apart from the move tool without opening either schema.

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?

Declares itself the canonical deletion path and gives an explicit when-not with the exact alternative call to avoid. This is direct routing guidance rather than implied context.

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