Move Email Rule Down

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation; the description adds that it moves the rule down one position, cannot be moved if at the bottom, and requires user confirmation. No contradictions, and adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is concise, using an emoji-title, a short paragraph, and clearly labelled args and returns. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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 simple move operation, the description covers purpose, constraints, required parameters, and return type. With an output schema present, the return description ('Updated rule with new sequence number') is 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides brief but clear parameter meanings ('The message rule ID to move' and 'Microsoft account ID'). This is adequate but could include format or source details.

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 action: 'Move a message rule down one position in execution order' and 'Decreases the rule's priority.' It specifies the resource (message rule) and effect, and distinguishes from siblings like emailrules_move_up and emailrules_move_bottom.

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?

The description mentions a constraint ('Rules at the bottom cannot be moved down further') and notes that user confirmation is recommended, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like emailrules_move_up or emailrules_move_bottom. Only implied usage.

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