outlook_create_rule

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 conveys the rule's effect but says nothing about whether new rules apply retroactively to existing inbox mail, whether the destination folder must pre-exist, what permissions are required, or how the default sequence/isEnabled settings interact. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 the action, trigger (sender criteria), and outcome (move to folder) — no filler or redundancy.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the happy path effect. Missing are the ordering/enablement semantics of the rule, folder prerequisites, and any indication of what happens to already-received messages.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the senderContains and moveToFolder semantics but adds no detail beyond the schema, and it says nothing about the displayName, sequence, or isEnabled parameters.

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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (inbox message rule) and describes the resulting automation (move emails matching sender criteria to a folder), which maps directly to the required parameters. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like outlook_list_rules or outlook_delete_rule, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 word 'automatically' hints at the persistent-rule use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to create a rule versus using outlook_move_email for a one-off move, nor any prerequisites such as the destination folder needing to exist. The agent must infer the selection context entirely.

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