outlook_set_inbox_override

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with upsert/case-insensitive semantics and the persistence scope (future messages). It also discloses the return status values ('created' or 'updated'), which annotations do not cover. It stops short of auth or rate-limit context, but the safety profile is well grounded.

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?

Three tight sentences plus a worked example, front-loaded with the core action before the alternative-tool routing. Every element earns its place, and the example is high-value given the zero schema coverage.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return status inline. The only real gap is the missing enumeration of classify_as values, which is notable for a required param with no schema description or enum. Otherwise complete for a two-parameter upsert tool.

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 the load. The example demonstrates sender_email and the case-insensitive behavior, and 'Focused/Other rule' hints at classify_as values, but it never enumerates the accepted classify_as inputs, leaving a required parameter with no enum under-specified.

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 ('Create or update a sticky Focused/Other rule for a sender') and clarifies the upsert semantics and case-insensitivity. It explicitly names the sibling it differs from (outlook_reclassify_message), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('permanently change classification for FUTURE messages') and a named alternative with the contrasting condition ('use outlook_reclassify_message to fix ONE existing message'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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