outlook_send_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'send an existing draft' without disclosing side effects (e.g., does the draft get deleted after sending? Is the sent message stored?). This is a significant gap for a mutating action.

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 no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by adding a note about parameter semantics, but it earns a high score for brevity.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description minimally covers the action but lacks behavioral transparency and parameter guidance. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's effects or prerequisites.

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?

The only parameter (draft_id) has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no explanation. While 'draft_id' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description should clarify that this is the unique identifier of the draft to send.

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 action ('Send') and resource ('an existing draft'), and distinguishes from siblings like outlook_send_message and outlook_create_draft by explicitly recommending pairing with outlook_create_draft for a human-review flow.

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 tells when to use it (after creating a draft) and implies an alternative workflow (human-review send flow). It does not fully list exclusions but provides clear context for use.

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