outlook_send_draft

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not clarify what happens to the draft after sending (e.g., is it deleted or marked as sent?). Given the absence of output schema, more behavioral detail would be helpful.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and a key usage pattern. Every word adds value, with no filler.

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 simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the core use case. However, it lacks information on the result of sending (e.g., success/failure feedback) and how this tool differs from outlook_send_with_attachments.

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 single parameter draft_id has 0% schema coverage, but the description adds the qualifier 'existing', implying the draft must already exist. This adds slight meaning beyond the raw schema, but no format or validation details are provided.

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 'Send an existing draft', identifying the verb (send) and resource (draft). It also pairs with outlook_create_draft, distinguishing it from other draft operations like outlook_delete_draft. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from outlook_send_with_attachments, which is a closely related sibling.

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 suggests using this tool after creating a draft and for human-review flows, but it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like outlook_send_with_attachments. There are no prerequisites or error conditions mentioned.

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