propose_send_draft

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is a preview (no side effects), returns a draft_id, requires specific auth, and emphasizes the irreversibility of actual sending. No contradictions.

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 with a brief lead sentence, followed by usage caveats and required scopes, then an Args section. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple one-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, prereqs, and parameter usage. Minor lack of error handling notes, but sufficient for agent decision.

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%, but the description explains 'message_id: The draft to send, e.g. from `apply_draft`,' adding context beyond the schema's bare title.

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 explicitly states 'PREVIEW sending an existing draft. Sends nothing — returns a `draft_id`.' This clearly defines the tool as a simulation of sending, distinguishing it from actual send actions.

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 includes prerequisites ('Mail.Send scope and HOTMAIL_MCP_ALLOW_SEND=true') and advises reading recipients back before confirming, implying it's a safe preview. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like 'apply_send' for contrast.

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