outlook_delete_draft

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the irreversible nature is structurally conveyed. The description adds nothing on top of that: it says nothing about permanence, whether the draft can be recovered, or whether attachments are discarded with it.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, this is minimally viable: the agent knows what is deleted. It is missing the source of the ID and any statement of consequence, which matter more here because the operation is irreversible.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the single draft_id parameter carries no documentation of its own; the phrase "by ID" at least confirms that draft_id is the draft's identifier and is required. It stops short of saying what form the ID takes or where to obtain it.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a draft message") and adds the identifier constraint ("by ID"), so an agent knows exactly what the call performs. It does not explicitly contrast with the neighboring outlook_delete_message, which is the closest confusable sibling for an agent holding a draft ID.

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?

There is no guidance about when this should be used rather than outlook_delete_message, nor any prerequisite such as where a valid draft_id comes from (e.g., outlook_list_drafts). The usage is only inferable from the name.

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