outlook_navigate_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether navigation persists as session state, whether it requires an authenticated session, or what happens on an invalid folder – all relevant for a state-changing navigation call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and valid values appear immediately. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool does and its accepted values. It is missing post-condition or session-state behavior, which an agent would need to know before relying on the navigation taking effect.

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 100%, so the single parameter is already documented. The description's enumeration of folder values (inbox|sentitems|archive|deleteditems|drafts|newsletter) adds a slightly more complete list than the schema's 'inbox, sentitems, archive, ...', but otherwise repeats structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Navigiert in einen Mail-Ordner') and enumerates the valid folder values, which directly matches the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling outlook_list_folders, but the verb 'navigate' vs 'list' makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must already be logged in), and no named alternative such as outlook_list_folders for discovering folders first. Usage is only implied by the operation name.

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