outlook_create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains draft lifecycle (created for later review, paired with `outlook_send_draft`), scheduled delivery behavior, and pre-populated Reply-To. Missing details on permissions or side effects, but core behavior is 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then provides usage guidelines and parameter hints in 4 sentences. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's role, when to use, and key parameters. It lacks description of all parameters and return value, but the core workflow is well explained.

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 must add meaning. It explains `deferred_send_datetime` format and behavior, and `reply_to` purpose. Other 7 parameters (to, subject, body, cc, bcc, is_html, importance) are not described, leaving gaps.

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 it creates a draft email for later review/send and distinguishes from sibling `outlook_send_message` which sends immediately. The verb 'create' and resource 'draft' are specific.

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 tells when to use this tool (when human should review) and when to use `outlook_send_message` instead. Also provides usage for `deferred_send_datetime` and `reply_to`.

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