outlook_flag_message

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows re-flagging is safe and non-destructive; the description adds the status semantics on top. It does not mention permission requirements or what state an unflagged message returns to, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is adequate.

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, purpose first, parameter values second. No filler whatsoever.

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 trivial two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only usage routing and permission context are absent.

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% and status has no enum constraint in the schema, so the description's enumeration of the three valid values ('flagged', 'complete', 'notFlagged') is the only place that meaning exists — this genuinely compensates. message_id is left implicit but is self-explanatory.

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: 'Set the follow-up flag on a message.' That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like outlook_mark_read, outlook_categorize_message, or outlook_move_message. It just doesn't explicitly name or contrast with an alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives (e.g. when to flag vs. categorize vs. mark read). The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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