outlook_reply

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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only and not destructive, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that the operation is a reply and can target all recipients ('reply-all'), but it does not disclose side effects such as actually sending the message or requiring an existing message_id. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage guidance in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the expected format of body, the role of is_html, or what happens after the reply is sent (immediate send vs draft). The presence of sibling tools like outlook_forward and outlook_send_message adds ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 carries the full burden for parameter explanation. It only hints at 'reply-all' mapping to the reply_all boolean and gives no guidance on message_id, body, or is_html. This is insufficient to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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: 'Reply (or reply-all) to an email message.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and explicitly distinguishes it from the calendar-specific outlook_rsvp by naming the sibling tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool vs an alternative: 'Use this for email; use outlook_rsvp for calendar meeting invites.' This provides a clear decision rule for the most relevant sibling, though it does not mention other alternatives like outlook_forward or outlook_send_message.

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