graph_mail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'on behalf of the current identity,' which hints at auth context, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, whether sending is irreversible, or what happens on failure. For a side-effecting email-sending action, 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 sentence that front-loads the verb and entity, includes a useful identity qualifier, and contains no filler. It earns every word.

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 three-string-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it tells the agent what action to take and under whose identity. However, with no annotations and no return-value information, it leaves behavioral and edge-case details unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter-level detail. The parameter names 'to', 'subject', and 'body' are self-evident in an email context, but the description does not clarify formats, recipient syntax, or body type.

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 action ('Send mail') and resource ('via Microsoft Graph'), and clarifies the acting identity ('current identity'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling graph_teams_message, which sends Teams messages instead of email.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to send email as the current user via Microsoft Graph. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'mail' vs. 'teams_message' distinction is apparent enough that an agent can select appropriately.

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