outlook_attach_to_draft

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

Discloses auto-switching to upload session for files >3MB, path existence requirement, and return of attachment IDs. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent; description adds value beyond them.

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 concise sentences with no filler. First sentence covers purpose and key behavior; second covers requirements and return value. Well front-loaded.

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?

Explains return value (attachment IDs) and usage context (existing draft, large file handling). Lacks error conditions or prerequisites but sufficient for a straightforward attachment 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?

Adds meaning to attachment_paths (must be absolute paths, must exist) but draft_id receives no additional context. With 0% schema coverage, description partially compensates.

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?

Explicitly states the action (add attachments), target (existing draft), and a key behavior (auto-switch for large files). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like outlook_remove_draft_attachment and outlook_send_with_attachments.

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?

Provides a critical requirement (absolute paths to existing files) and hints at workflow by mentioning attachment IDs for removal. However, does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like outlook_send_with_attachments or outlier cases.

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