outlook_copy_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value by spelling out the duplicate-and-leave-source semantics, but it says nothing about whether attachments, categories, or flags carry over to the copy, which is the main behavioral ambiguity for a copy operation.

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 tight sentences with the core semantics front-loaded in parentheses and the sibling pointer after. No filler, and the folder-format note is compact enough to justify its space.

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?

For a two-param, non-destructive tool with no output schema, this covers the decision and the invocation. The remaining gap is what the resulting copy retains versus the original, which an agent might reasonably want before copying a message with attachments.

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 the description must carry the load, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: `folder` accepts display names, well-known names, or Graph IDs, with a stated preference. `message_id` is left implicit, which is defensible since its meaning is self-evident, but the format is never confirmed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Copy a message to another folder") and immediately clarifies the key semantic distinction: duplicates, source unchanged. This separates it cleanly from outlook_move_message, which appears among its siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use outlook_move_message to remove from source, use this to duplicate. It names the alternative and the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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