Reply to Email

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

The description discloses critical behaviors: requires user confirmation, sends immediately, cannot be undone, body is whitespace-stripped and validated. This adds value beyond annotations, though auth requirements are omitted.

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 and front-loaded with a warning and key constraints. Each sentence serves a purpose, but the args list could be integrated more naturally.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and error conditions. It mentions return status and possible ValidationError, which is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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 coverage, the description explicitly lists and explains each parameter (account_id as Microsoft account ID, email_id as email ID, body as plain text, confirm must be True). The explanations are clear and sufficient, though more detail on formats could improve.

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 this tool replies to an email, with specific mention of sending to the original sender. It distinguishes from sibling tools like email_reply_all and email_forward by specifying 'original sender'.

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 when to use this tool (to reply to original sender) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like email_reply_all or email_forward. No prerequisites or context for when to avoid are provided.

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