edit_mail_draft

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it guarantees the draft is never sent and that all attachments undergo path and size validation before the first Exchange write, which is meaningful safety/consistency context. It omits auth requirements and what happens to fields not supplied.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose, the no-send guarantee and the routing constraint front-loaded; little waste. It is efficient, though the second sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 described, and the description covers the two non-obvious parameters plus the critical safety behavior. For an 8-param mutation tool with zero annotation coverage it is largely sufficient, though additional field-level context would help.

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 8 params, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for draft_ref (mail-draft reference only) and attachments (must live in allowed directories, size-checked), but says nothing about cc/to/bcc/subject/body_html/importance beyond their self-evident names, so half the parameters remain unelaborated.

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?

Names a specific verb (修改/edit) and resource (邮件草稿/mail draft), states the scope (may append local attachments, never sends), and explicitly separates itself from a sibling by declaring that meetings must use save_meeting. An agent can tell this apart from save_meeting without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear routing: draft_ref is only a mail-draft reference and meetings must go to save_meeting, which is a concrete alternative. However it does not clarify when to use this versus the sibling save_mail_draft (creating/persisting a draft), leaving that boundary to inference.

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