cipp_set_out_of_office

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context by specifying that the tool causes automated messages, is reversible, and requires user confirmation. This goes beyond the 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 (four lines including a warning symbol) and front-loads the high-impact warning. Every sentence adds value, though the warning symbol could be seen as formatting rather than content.

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?

The description covers the high-level behavior and includes a warning, but given the lack of output schema and moderate parameter count, it could benefit from mentioning the success/failure response format or potential side effects beyond automated 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool configures the out-of-office/auto-reply for a mailbox, with a specific verb ('configures') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on auto-reply settings, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 includes a high-impact warning and instructs to confirm with the user, implying caution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when other messaging settings might be more appropriate) and no exclusion criteria.

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