Reply to an existing email while preserving the original thread and marking it as answered. Supports reply-all, quoting, attachments, and saving to sent.
Responde um e-mail existente mantendo o encadeamento (In-Reply-To/References) e marca-o como respondido.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| html | No | ||
| folder | Yes | ||
| reply_all | No | ||
| attachments | No | ||
| save_to_sent | No | ||
| quote_original | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It usefully mentions that threading headers are preserved and that the email is marked as replied, but it does not disclose other important behaviors such as sending, saving to Sent, quoting behavior, or attachment handling.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the two key behavioral details: threading preservation and marking as replied. No words are wasted.
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 tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation. It omits how folder and uid identify the message, what reply_all and quote_original do, and what the agent should expect after the reply is sent.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of uid, folder, body, html, reply_all, attachments, save_to_sent, or quote_original. An agent gets no semantic help beyond parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for 8 parameters.
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 a specific verb ('Responde') and resource ('um e-mail existente'), and distinguishes the tool from send_email and forward_email by emphasizing threading and marking the email as replied. The use of 'existente' makes the scope unambiguous.
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 phrase 'e-mail existente' communicates that this tool is for replying to an already received message rather than composing a new one or forwarding. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.