ews_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states that it sends email via EWS, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., account setup), potential side effects (e.g., sent vs drafts), error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The absence of such details leaves a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the differentiator (blocked SMTP/Graph) is included without excess.

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 9 parameters, all described in the schema, and an output schema present, the description is minimal but does not introduce critical missing context. It fails to mention any constraints like attachment support, account requirements, or explicit alternatives, but the schema covers parameters. The description is adequate but not thorough for a tool with many siblings.

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 100% since every parameter has a description in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 the verb 'Send' and the resource 'email via Exchange Web Services'. It also distinguishes from SMTP and Graph API by noting it works on tenants that block those, effectively separating it from sibling send tools like graph_send_message and smtp_send_message.

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: when SMTP and Graph API are blocked. It provides a condition but does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X when Y'. The implication is clear enough for an agent to infer, but it could be more direct.

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