outlook_forward

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

Annotations already supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds nothing beyond them. It is silent on key behaviors for a forward: whether it sends immediately, whether attachments and original body are carried over, whether a copy lands in Sent Items, and what permissions/scope are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance, so it reads as under-specified rather than optimally tight.

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 tool with 4 undocumented parameters, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation annotation, the description does far too little. An agent still cannot know how to format recipients, what is_markdown controls, or what the forwarding side effects are.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only loosely maps 'new recipients' to `to` and 'optional comment' to `comment`; `message_id` and especially `is_markdown` (a format flag affecting the comment rendering) are entirely unexplained.

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 ('Forward') and resource ('an existing message') plus the target ('new recipients'), so an agent can tell it apart from outlook_reply and outlook_send_message. It lacks any explicit sibling differentiation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (where message_id comes from, e.g. outlook_list_inbox/outlook_read_message), and no comparison to the neighboring outlook_reply, which is the closest alternative. 'Forward an existing message' implies the tool's purpose but gives no decision criteria.

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