hey365_sendSend only explicitly approved reply drafts directly to the original Outlook or Teams thread, preserving conversation context without creating new threads.
ユーザーが明示的に指示した返信案だけを、元のスレッドへの返信として送信する。新規スレッドは作らない。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ユーザーが明示的に送信を指示した場合のみ true にしてください | |
| itemIds | Yes | 送信する番号の配列。例 ["1","3"]。全件送信は ["all"] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that it only sends user-approved reply drafts as replies to original threads and does not create new threads, adding important behavioral context beyond the input schema. It does not mention irreversibility or failure behavior, but the core side effects are clearly disclosed.
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?
A single compact sentence front-loads the critical constraint ('only explicitly instructed reply drafts') before stating the action and the new-thread exclusion. 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 tool is simple with two fully documented parameters, and the core behavior is clearly described, including what it does not do. With no output schema, it leaves the agent to infer the return value and error behavior, but this is a minor gap for a low-complexity send tool.
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; both itemIds and confirm are already documented with concrete examples and intent. The tool description reinforces the confirm semantics but does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('sent reply drafts') and clearly defines the scope: only explicitly instructed reply drafts, sent as replies to original threads, with no new thread creation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hey365_draft and from general send operations.
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 states an explicit precondition: send only when the user has explicitly instructed a reply draft to be sent, which tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not name alternatives such as hey365_draft nor provide direct when-not-to-use guidance beyond the no-new-thread note, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.