outlook_forward

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

The description states the core action (forwarding) which implies side effects like sending an email. It does not explicitly mention consequences such as creating a new message or whether the original is modified, but the annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates non-read-only behavior, so the description adds limited extra transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant details.

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 tool like forwarding a message, the description is largely sufficient to understand its function and inputs. It lacks broader context about when to use it, but given the simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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?

The description references 'new recipients' and 'optional comment', which maps to the 'to' and 'comment' parameters, but it does not explicitly explain 'message_id'. Since the schema lacks per-parameter descriptions, the description provides partial coverage but not enough to fully understand all three parameters without additional context.

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: forwarding an existing message to new recipients. The verb 'forward' and object 'existing message' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like send or reply by focusing on forwarding.

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 implies usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like outlook_send_message or outlook_reply. No conditions or comparisons are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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