outlook_update_draft

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

The description discloses that it's a partial patch, not a full replacement. It highlights specific behavioral constraints: is_html flag required for HTML bodies, reply_to handling to overwrite or clear, and deferred_send_datetime behavior. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or other prerequisites.

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 short with 4 sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and subsequent sentences provide parameter-specific guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains only a few parameters and omits return value, side effects, and validation details. Key parameters like subject, body, to, cc are undocumented.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for only 3 out of 8 parameters (is_html, reply_to, deferred_send_datetime). The other 5 parameters (draft_id, subject, body, to, cc) are not explained beyond the schema's type/title, leaving significant gaps.

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 'Update an existing draft (partial patch)', specifying the verb (update) and resource (draft). It distinguishes from sibling tools like outlook_create_draft and outlook_send_draft by focusing on modifying an existing 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 implies usage for updating an existing draft but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or send. No when-not or alternative tool names are provided, leaving guidance implicit.

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