microsoft_send_email

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

The description claims 'to (required)' but the schema specifies anyOf [string, null] with default null, indicating it is optional. This is a contradiction. No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden, but it fails to disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, character limits, or attachment support.

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 short but includes a poorly formatted 'Args' section with an incomplete line for subject. It is concise but the structure is rough, and every sentence does not fully earn its place due to the missing information.

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?

Given 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output schema (though one exists), error handling, or limitations like attachment support. The contradiction between description and schema further reduces completeness for an agent.

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 should add meaning. It identifies 'to' as required (inconsistent), and mentions subject, body, and cc, but body only says 'HTML body' without format details, and subject has no description. The comma-separated format for addresses is mentioned, but overall it adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 'Send an email from the connected Microsoft 365 mailbox,' which clearly identifies the verb (send), resource (email), and context (Microsoft 365). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_send_email and other Microsoft tools that perform different actions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gmail_send_email) or when not to use it. Prerequisites, such as being connected to a Microsoft 365 mailbox, are implied but not stated. No exclusions or context for selecting this tool over others.

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