outlook_update_draft

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

Annotations indicate this is a write, non-destructive operation. The description adds important behavioral context: the partial patch behavior, the requirement for is_html=True when overwriting HTML drafts, and how to set or clear reply_to and deferred_send_datetime. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand edge cases.

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 extremely concise—only four lines—and each sentence serves a distinct purpose. The purpose is front-loaded, and the subsequent lines provide critical parameter guidance without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool has 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers key parameter behaviors and constraints. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (likely the updated draft) or error conditions. Still, it provides enough context for correct invocation in most scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the semantics of is_html, reply_to, and deferred_send_datetime. While other parameters (to, cc, body, subject) are not elaborated, they are standard email fields and require less explanation. The description adds value for the most nuanced parameters.

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 identifies the tool as updating an existing draft via a partial patch. The verb 'update' and resource 'draft' are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings like outlook_create_draft, outlook_send_draft, and outlook_delete_draft.

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 provides specific usage conditions for key parameters (is_html, reply_to, deferred_send_datetime), which guides correct invocation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative draft-related tools, though the purpose implicitly handles that.

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