outlook_remove_draft_attachment

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by saying it removes an attachment. It adds the useful detail that only a single attachment is removed from a draft, but does not describe irreversibility, error behavior, or permission requirements beyond the annotation.

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 efficient sentence with the action and target front-loaded; every phrase contributes.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain how to obtain the IDs or what happens if the attachment or draft is missing, which would help an agent invoke it reliably.

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 parameter meaning. It implies that attachment_id identifies the attachment and that the operation targets a draft, but it does not explain draft_id, ID formats, or where those IDs come from.

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 states a specific verb and resource (remove a single attachment) and scopes it to a draft message, which clearly distinguishes it from attach_to_draft and from event-attachment removal.

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 operation is intuitively implied by the description, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deleting the whole draft or listing attachments first.

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