Reply to an Outlook email sender or all recipients, with confirmation before the message is actually sent.
Responde um email (ao remetente ou a todos). Envia de verdade; pede confirmação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cf | No | código de confirmação devolvido pela 1ª chamada | |
| alvo | Yes | email: id curto ('3'), 'atual' (último lido/afetado) ou 'ultimo' (1º da última listagem) | |
| corpo | Yes | texto da resposta | |
| todos | No | responder a todos |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real value by warning 'Envia de verdade' (it actually sends) and 'pede confirmação' (a confirmation step is required), which explains the two-phase cf flow implied by the schema. It still does not describe what the confirmation response looks like or what happens after the send.
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 with the action and its most important side effect front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.
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 destructive, open-world send tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential risk and confirmation behavior. The main remaining gap is that the confirmation round-trip is only hinted at rather than spelled out, but the schema's cf parameter fills that in.
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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description only echoes the 'todos' scope with 'ao remetente ou a todos'. No additional meaning (e.g., what 'atual'/'ultimo' resolve to, or when cf is mandatory) is contributed beyond the schema.
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 ('Responde um email') plus the reply scope ('ao remetente ou a todos'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like snd (send) or fw (forward). It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb: use this when replying to an existing email rather than composing a new one. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., snd for new mail, fw for forwarding), so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.