outlook_set_inbox_override

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that by clarifying upsert semantics ('created' vs 'updated'), stickiness, and case-insensitive matching. It does not mention permission requirements or how the rule relates to existing Focused/Other state, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences with no waste: definition first, disambiguation second, example and return shape last. Front-loaded and every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to prefer it, and what it returns (status: created/updated). The remaining gap is the classify_as value set, which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: the example clarifies sender_email usage and shows classify_as="other", and 'case-insensitive' attaches to sender matching. It never enumerates the legal values for classify_as (e.g., whether "focused" is valid alongside "other"), which is the main ambiguity an agent would hit.

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/update a sticky Focused/Other rule for a sender, and explicitly frames it as an upsert with case-insensitive matching. The Focused/Other classification scope distinguishes it from generic message tooling.

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 to use this for FUTURE messages and names the sibling outlook_reclassify_message for fixing ONE existing message, so the selection rule between the two is unambiguous. It also states the permanence of the effect.

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