outlook_set_inbox_override

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

Discloses upsert behavior, case-insensitivity, return status, and effect on future messages. No annotations provided, but description is transparent enough. Could mention that it modifies rules non-destructively.

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?

Four sentences: purpose, usage distinction, example, return value. Front-loaded and no unnecessary words.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, example, and return. For a simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, it's nearly complete; missing explicit valid values for classify_as.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage; description provides an example with sender_email and classify_as='other', but does not list valid values for classify_as (e.g., 'focused' or 'other'). Schema lacks enum, so description partially compensates but could be more explicit.

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 creates or updates a sticky Focused/Other rule for a sender (upsert, case-insensitive). It includes a verb, resource, and differentiates from sibling outlook_reclassify_message.

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 states when to use: 'Use this to permanently change classification for FUTURE messages from a sender; use outlook_reclassify_message to fix ONE existing message.'

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