outlook_send_mail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the critical Human-in-the-Loop safety gate and the draft fallback, which is important beyond the schema's default value. It does not mention permissions or failure behavior, but the core side effect is well covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful information. 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?

The output schema covers return values and the input schema covers parameter names/types, but the description lacks parameter semantics and explicit alternative guidance. It is minimally complete for a simple send tool but has clear gaps.

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 only explains confirm_send. The meanings and usage of subject, body, to_recipients, and cc_recipients are left entirely to the schema, which is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'Send an email through Outlook,' a specific verb and resource. The conditional 'otherwise creates a draft' clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling outlook_create_draft.

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?

It provides clear context: confirm_send=True sends, otherwise it creates a draft, which effectively tells the agent when the tool will send versus draft. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the behavior is clear enough.

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