outlook_reply

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds nothing about what actually happens: whether the reply is sent immediately and irreversibly, whether it lands in Sent Items, or what permissions are needed. The one implied behavior (reply-all) comes only from the baked-in parenthetical, not from real disclosure.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the sibling routing second. Nothing is padded, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and an irreversible send action, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent without send semantics, parameter meanings, or result expectations.

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 burden for five parameters. It only hints at reply_all; message_id, body, is_html and is_markdown are left entirely undocumented, and the precedence/relationship between is_html and is_markdown is unresolved.

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 (reply / reply-all) and resource (email message), and explicitly separates itself from the calendar RSVP sibling. It does not differentiate from the other send-side siblings like outlook_forward or outlook_send_message, which keeps it short of 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use this for email, use outlook_rsvp for calendar invites. That is clear usage context, though it offers no exclusions or guidance for the closely related forward/send_message tools.

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