outlook_forward

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds that the comment is optional and gets attached, but it does not clarify the critical behavior of whether forwarding sends immediately or only creates a draft, nor how attachments are handled. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a moderate but real gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with the operation and the optional parameter, no filler or redundancy. Appropriately sized for a three-parameter mutation tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation detail beyond the safety flags, so the description should say more about the outcome of the call (e.g. does it return the new message id, does it send instantly). As written it is adequate to call the tool but incomplete about consequences, which matters for a send-type mutation.

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 description must carry the param burden. It explains 'to' (new recipients) and 'comment' (optional), but leaves message_id completely undescribed beyond the weak implication of 'an existing message'. Two of three parameters are covered, but no format or type guidance is added.

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') and names the target ('new recipients'), which an agent can readily separate from outlook_reply and outlook_send_message. The only gap is that it never names those siblings explicitly, relying on the reader to infer the distinction.

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 phrase 'to new recipients' implicitly signals the forwarding use case versus replying to the original sender, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. requires an existing message_id), and no named alternatives despite 60+ sibling tools.

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