graph_send_email

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 discloses the auth mode ('application permissions') and body format, but says nothing about send side effects (e.g., whether the message lands in Sent Items), Graph throttling limits, permission scope required, or whether from_user must be a real mailbox/UPN. For a send/mutation tool this is a substantial 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 no padding. It could be tighter ('corporate' and the Graph API branding add little), but it is efficiently structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 5 params at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin for a tool that performs an irreversible external send. It should at minimum cover recipient/from formats and permission prerequisites.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description does not compensate. It hints that html_body expects HTML but gives no format or example for from_user (UPN vs address), to_recipients/cc_recipients list semantics, or subject constraints, leaving four required inputs undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sends corporate email') plus the transport and auth model ('via Microsoft Graph API with application permissions'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like graph_send_teams_notification and graph_list_recent_messages.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to prefer this over graph_send_teams_notification for a given notification task, or what prerequisites (e.g., a provisioned service principal) are needed.

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