reply-all-shared-mailbox-mail

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, and the description adds little beyond the confirm requirement, which is already documented in the schema. It does not disclose that the message will be sent to all original recipients, that sending is irreversible, or what side effects may occur.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with the action front-loaded. The confirm requirement is an important safety condition and earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The required parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description names the operation and the confirmation requirement, making invocation minimally possible. However, given the large sibling set and the existence of very similar tools, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently select this tool over reply-all-mail or reply-shared-mailbox-mail.

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 100%, so all parameters are explained in the input schema. The description's mention of confirm=true duplicates the schema's safety-gate explanation and adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Reply-all') and resource ('shared-mailbox message'), so an agent can tell it is a reply-all operation on a shared mailbox. However, it largely restates the tool name and does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings such as reply-shared-mailbox-mail or reply-all-mail.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires confirm=true,' which is an execution prerequisite already reflected in the confirm parameter schema. There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over reply-mail, reply-all-mail, reply-shared-box-mail, or forward-shared-mailbox-mail.

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