draft_reply

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it does not send, the original email quote and recipient are assembled by Graph, and the body appears at the top. This adds meaningful context not visible in annotations, with no contradictions.

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 compact and well-structured, with a bold emphasis on the non-sending behavior and a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting improves scannability.

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 an output schema exists, return values are already covered. The description provides essential behavioral context (no send, quote assembly), parameter meaning, and side-effect clarity. It is sufficiently complete for a draft-creation tool, though it could optionally mention the destination folder for drafts.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: message_id accepts short or raw IDs, body is plain text, and reply_all toggles reply-to-all. This is sufficient for correct usage, though it could include more examples or validation details.

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 creates a draft reply to a received email and explicitly notes it does not send it. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sending tools and from the general create_draft sibling.

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 for replying to received emails, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_draft. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, though the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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