Creates or edits Outlook email drafts without sending them, including new messages, replies, replies-all, forwards, and draft updates so you can review and send later.
Cria ou edita rascunho sem enviar: novo, resposta, resposta_todos, encaminhar ou editar um rascunho existente. Envie depois com snd alvo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alvo | No | email base (resposta/encaminhar) ou rascunho (editar) | |
| para | No | ||
| tipo | No | tipo | novo |
| corpo | No | texto | |
| assunto | No | assunto |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so mutability is known; the description adds the important trait that nothing is transmitted and drafts must be sent separately. It does not say what 'editar' does to existing fields (full replace vs merge), whether drafts are duplicated, or what identifier is returned for the later snd call.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the no-send constraint, then the handoff to snd. No redundant wording.
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?
All parameters are optional and annotations cover safety, so the description plus schema is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The minor gap is not clarifying the draft identifier returned by 'editar'/'novo' that 'snd alvo' would consume, given there is no output schema.
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 80%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description reinforces the 'alvo' linkage to snd and covers the 'tipo' family, but adds no format or content rules (e.g. whether 'corpo'/'assunto' are required for each tipo).
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 pair (create/edit) and resource (draft) plus a crucial negative scope: 'sem enviar'. It also names the sibling to use afterwards (snd), so an agent can distinguish it from the send tools without inspecting the 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?
It clearly routes the agent: draft here, then send with 'snd alvo'. However it never explains when to pick each 'tipo' (novo vs resposta vs encaminhar) versus the dedicated reply/forward siblings (rp, fw), leaving that choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.