outlook_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Reply (or reply-all) to an email message,' omitting details about whether the action is destructive, if it immediately sends the reply, or if specific permissions are required. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of replying to an email (threading, handling attachments, recipient lists), the description is too minimal. It does not explain required body format, behavior with attachments, or how reply-all interacts with recipients. The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description offers no additional context.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain that 'reply_all' controls reply-all behavior or that 'is_html' indicates HTML formatting. The parameters remain undocumented in the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Reply (or reply-all) to an email message.' It uses a specific verb (reply) and resource (email message), and distinguishes itself from siblings like outlook_rsvp by noting 'use outlook_rsvp for calendar meeting invites.'

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 tells when to use this tool ('Use this for email') and when not to ('use outlook_rsvp for calendar meeting invites'), providing clear context relative to a sibling. However, it does not cover alternatives like outlook_forward or outline prerequisites.

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