outlook_attach_to_draft

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: auto-switch to upload session for >3MB, requirement for absolute and existing paths, and return of attachment IDs for removal. 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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and essential details. Every word adds value; no unnecessary 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 no output schema, description adequately covers all critical aspects: operation, constraints, large file behavior, and return value. Could mention error handling for missing drafts, but overall sufficient for a parameterized 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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining draft_id refers to an existing draft and attachment_paths must be absolute paths to existing files. Does not detail array format but adds meaningful context.

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 'Add attachments to an existing draft' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions auto-switching for large files, which distinguishes it from other attachment tools like outlook_remove_draft_attachment.

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 provides constraints (absolute paths, existing files) and mentions auto-switch for large files, but does not explicitly compare with siblings like outlook_send_with_attachments or outline when not to use this tool over alternatives.

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