outlook_flag_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the three legal flag states, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether existing flags are overwritten, or what happens on an invalid message_id.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action comes first and the parameter vocabulary second, which is the right order for an agent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say what the call returns. For a mutation tool with only annotation-level coverage, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves message_id handling and permission requirements unexplained.

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 status parameter has no enum in the schema, so the description's enumeration of 'flagged', 'complete', 'notFlagged' is a real addition beyond the structured data. However, message_id (required) receives no explanation of format or where to obtain 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Set the follow-up flag on a message'), which is clearly distinct from sibling operations such as outlook_mark_read or outlook_categorize_message. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus adjacent tools (mark_read, categorize_message, complete_task) and no prerequisites or constraints stated. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the verb.

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