outlook_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 explicitly discloses the non-sending behavior, the Drafts folder placement, and the server-side permission restriction. This is strong transparency for a creation tool, though it could mention return behavior or failure modes, but those are less critical here.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical caveat about not sending is placed immediately after. The parenthetical explains the reason concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 9 parameters but the schema fully covers them. The description addresses the most important contextual concern (draft vs send) and the outcome (appears in Drafts). It does not enumerate all parameters, but that is unnecessary given the schema. The description is complete enough for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already thoroughly defines each parameter, including the HTML preference guidance. Thus the description does not need to compensate.

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 starts with the specific verb+resource 'Create a draft email' and immediately clarifies the key distinction: it does NOT send, but creates a draft for manual review. This distinguishes it from any hypothetical send tool and from sibling read/search tools.

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 clearly implies when to use: when you want to compose an email without sending it, leaving the draft for manual review. It also states the permission limitation (cannot send), which indirectly says 'don't expect this to send'. It lacks explicit alternatives, but given the sibling set, no other tool creates drafts or emails, so the context is sufficient.

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