m365_create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that the message is a draft placed in the Drafts folder rather than sent. It omits auth requirements, what happens on failure, and whether existing drafts are affected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that delivers the action, target folder, and the review-then-send intent with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It covers what and where, but for a mutation tool it leaves unanswered what a created draft contains and what the caller should expect, given the surprisingly empty parameter set.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about inputs, but there are none to describe. (The empty schema is itself surprising for a draft-creation tool, though that is a schema issue rather than a description gap.)

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 ("Create an email DRAFT") plus the destination ("Drafts folder of your Microsoft 365 account"). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the generic sibling create_draft, so an agent must infer the M365 scoping from the name.

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 clause "for you to review and send yourself" implies the intended use case: compose now, send later. However, it never names the obvious alternative (m365_send_email) or states when not to use this tool, leaving the choice to inference.

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