reply_email

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

The description explains the reply_all behavior but does not disclose side effects (e.g., sent items, threading), required permissions, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it is minimally adequate.

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: one opening sentence and a terse list of parameters. No unnecessary words, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the basic operation and parameters, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it lacks any behavioral context about success/failure, threading, or integration with the email system. For a simple tool, it is minimally sufficient.

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?

All three parameters are described clearly: item_id as 'Exchange ItemId', body as 'Reply body text', and reply_all with conditional behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by providing meaning beyond bare schema.

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 'Reply to an email' with a specific verb and resource, and the parameter list reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'forward_email' and 'send_email' by the action itself.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where 'forward_email' or 'send_email' would be more appropriate.

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