outlook_enviar_email

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it sends an email, but it does not mention that it is a mutating action, may require authentication permissions, could have rate limits, or what the return value is. For a send action with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 one short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with no waste. However, it could afford to be slightly longer to include usage guidance, but it is not bloat.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool. It does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors (e.g., invalid recipients), success response, or whether a confirmation is returned. The schema is rich enough for parameters, but the description lacks behavioral context.

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 75% (para, corpo, cc are described, assunto is not). The description adds little beyond the schema; it confirms the body can be text or HTML, which is also in the schema. The main gap is that 'assunto' has no description, and the tool description doesn't compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (Envia) and resource (email via Outlook da conta autenticada), which is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like outlook_inbox (reading) and outlook_criar_evento (creating events). However, it does not mention the subject or recipients explicitly, though these are in the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate from other write tools, but the purpose is 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 this tool is used to send emails, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as when to use outlook_criar_evento for calendar invitations instead. Since the siblings are mostly for reading, the context is clear enough for basic selection, but no exclusions or conditions are given.

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