outlook_copy_message

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that copying duplicates the message and leaves the source unchanged, which aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint: false). No additional context like auth or rate limits is provided, but the description adds value beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simple copy operation with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage guidelines, and folder input format. It omits potential details like return values or error handling, but these are not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so partially by explaining that the folder parameter accepts display names, well-known names, or Graph IDs (preferring names). However, the message_id parameter is not described, leaving a gap.

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 the action ('Copy a message to another folder') and specifies the behavior ('duplicates; source is unchanged'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from the sibling outlook_move_message by noting it does not remove the source.

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 explicitly guides the agent on when to use this tool vs. the alternative: 'Use outlook_move_message to remove from source.' It also provides practical instructions for the folder parameter, mentioning acceptable input formats.

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