outlook_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states the immediate sending nature and no human review, which is critical. However, it omits details like error handling, rate limits, or confirmation of delivery. Still, the core behavior is well communicated.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides essential guidance without redundancy. Structure is clean and easy to parse.

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?

While the description differentiates well from siblings and clarifies usage, it does not explain return values, error states, or limitations (e.g., maximum recipients, attachment handling). Given no output schema and 10 parameters, more context would help. The mention of alternatives is good but incomplete for a comprehensive understanding.

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 should add meaning to each parameter. Only reply_to is explained ('route recipient replies to a different address'). Other parameters like importance, sensitivity, is_html, request_read_receipt lack any explanation, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is insufficient.

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 sends an email immediately without human review. It distinguishes from sibling tools like outlook_create_draft, outlook_reply, and outlook_rsvp, 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 guides when to use this tool versus alternatives: for human-review workflows use draft tools, for replying use outlook_reply, for calendar invites use outlook_rsvp. It also explains the reply_to parameter for routing replies.

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