outlook_create_draft

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states creation without sending, omitting details like whether the draft is saved, permissions required, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence without fluff. It is appropriately concise, though it could include slightly more context without losing brevity.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens to the draft (e.g., saved to drafts folder), any side effects, or return value, leaving gaps for the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, repeating the concept but not enriching parameter semantics.

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 'Create an email draft without sending' clearly states the action and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from sending. Among siblings, 'outlook_send_email' exists, making the differentiation clear.

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 implies usage for creating drafts but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'outlook_send_email'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are stated, relying on the tool name for context.

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