Create an unsent email draft in Microsoft Outlook with recipients, subject, body, and optional CC, BCC, or attachments.
Create a draft message (not sent). Returns the trimmed draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| mailbox | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| body_type | No | text | |
| attachments | No | ||
| include_raw | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key safety trait ('not sent') and the return behavior ('Returns the trimmed draft'), but it omits details like whether the draft is persisted, permission requirements, or side effects on existing drafts.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated concisely. Every word earns its place.
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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It lacks parameter guidance, usage context, and explanation of what 'trimmed' means, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.
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 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the 9 parameters. It does not explain the semantics of to, subject, body, cc, bcc, body_type, attachments, mailbox, or include_raw, leaving the agent to infer everything from bare schema titles.
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 action ('Create'), the resource ('a draft message'), and the crucial qualifier 'not sent', which distinguishes it from send_message. Adding 'Returns the trimmed draft' further clarifies the tool's output.
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 phrase 'not sent' implies this is for preparing messages without delivering them, and the sibling list includes send_message, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.