outlook_reclassify_message

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

The description accurately implies a mutating action (reclassify) and notes the non-destructive nature via annotations. It does not detail side effects or reversibility, but given the simple scope and the existing annotation hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the provided information is adequate for typical usage.

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?

The description is concise, using two short sentences to convey the action, a key parameter value, and the alternative tool. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, the classification values, and when to prefer an alternative. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description explicitly specifies the allowed values for `classification` ('focused' or 'other'), which is critical information not present in the schema. `message_id` is self-explanatory and no further detail is necessary. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Reclassify'), the resource ('message'), and the specific scope ('Focused/Other placement'). The contrast with outlook_set_inbox_override also distinguishes it from a similar sibling tool, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('fix a single message') and when to use an alternative (outlook_set_inbox_override for sticky rules). This gives direct guidance on choosing between related tools.

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