outlook_reclassify_message

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful scope detail: it affects exactly ONE message's placement and does not create a future-facing sender rule. It does not describe permissions, reversibility, or response behavior, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. It states the core action first, then gives the key parameter constraint and the sibling routing guidance without waste.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning return behavior or error conditions, but those are minor for this operation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does document the critical allowed values for `classification` ("focused" or "other"), but it does not explain the expected format or semantics of `message_id`.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reclassifying one message's Focused/Other placement. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling outlook_set_inbox_override by contrasting single-message repair with a sticky future-message rule.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to fix a single message and directs the agent to outlook_set_inbox_override when the intent is a sticky rule for future messages from the same sender. The when-to-use and alternative conditions are both clear.

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