outlook_create_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that no email is actually sent, which is critical for avoiding confusion with the send tool. However, it omits other important behavioral context such as authentication requirements, return values, or storage of the draft.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Create an email draft in Outlook (does not send).' Every word adds value, the main action comes first, and the clarification about sending is kept brief. No redundant or filler content.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters with an enum, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention return values, whether authentication is required, or how the draft is stored, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the five parameters (to, cc, subject, body, bodyType) or their constraints. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Create an email draft') and resource ('in Outlook'), and explicitly notes it does not send, distinguishing it from the sibling outlook_send_email tool. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 usage by stating it creates a draft and does not send, which suggests it should be used when the user wants a draft rather than a sent email. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use outlook_send_email to send', so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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