outlook_create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add valuable behavioral context by clarifying that the email is only drafted and must be opened and sent manually, which distinguishes a draft creation from a send operation. It says nothing about authentication requirements, whether an existing draft is overwritten, or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and target folder, with no wasted verbiage. The second sentence is mildly hand-holding but earns its place by clarifying that sending is a separate manual step.

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 create-draft tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, where the result lands, and that the user must send manually. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around auth and duplicate-draft handling.

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 100%, so all four parameters (to, cc, subject, body) are already documented with format hints like comma/semicolon-separated recipients. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Erstellt einen neuen E-Mail-Entwurf') and pinpoints the destination folder ('Ordner Entwürfe/Drafts in Outlook Web'). It is unambiguous, though it relies on the name rather than explicitly distinguishing itself from the read-only siblings (the tool set contains no other creation tool, so the risk is low).

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 second sentence describes the post-creation workflow ('open in Outlook, proofread, send'), which implies the tool is for staging emails that the user will send manually. However, it never states explicit conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g. login), leaving usage only implied.

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