outlook_reclassify_message

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

With no annotations, the description explains the core behavior (reclassify one message) and classification values. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or error scenarios, which would improve transparency. Still, for a simple action, it's fairly open.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and classification values; the second provides usage alternative. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 or annotations, but the tool is simple. The description covers basic action and distinguishes from sibling. It lacks info on return values or success confirmation, but for a reclassification action, the context is mostly sufficient.

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 should explain both parameters. It explains classification ('focused' or 'other'), but message_id is only mentioned by name without context or format guidance. This leaves ambiguity about what constitutes a valid 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 clearly states the tool's action: reclassify ONE message's Focused/Other placement. It specifies the resource (message) and the possible values for classification ('focused' or 'other'), distinguishing it from a sibling tool.

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?

Explicit guidance: use for a single message, and use outlook_set_inbox_override for a sticky rule. This directly tells when to use which tool.

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