outlook_send_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: 'no human review' conveys that this is an irreversible, immediately-dispatched action with no approval gate. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the sent message can be recalled, so it stops short of full 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the riskiest fact (immediate, no review) before the routing guidance. Every sentence is actionable and none restates the tool name or schema.

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 destructive send tool with no output schema, the description covers the key agent decisions: when to use it versus drafts/reply/rsvp and how to control reply routing. It omits what the call returns (e.g. message id) and whether the send is recallable, which are minor given the absence of an output schema.

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 parameter burden. It adds real meaning for reply_to ('route recipient replies to a different address, e.g. a shared team alias'). However, it says nothing about is_html, importance (which has no enum, so valid values are undocumented), or request_read_receipt, leaving several non-obvious parameters unexplained.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (send) and resource (email) and adds the critical scope qualifier 'immediately, no human review'. It is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling tools that create drafts or reply to messages.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives for the two most likely confusions: outlook_create_draft + outlook_send_draft for human-review workflows, outlook_reply for replies, and outlook_rsvp for calendar invites. Each routing condition is stated, not implied.

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