Forward an existing Outlook email by ID to new recipients, with optional body text or comments for added context.
Forward an existing email to new recipients
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Recipient email addresses for forwarding | |
| body | No | Additional message body for the forward | |
| comment | No | Optional comment for the forward | |
| bodyType | No | Body content type | text |
| messageId | Yes | The ID of the email to forward |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but fails to mention whether the forward is sent immediately or saved as draft, if it modifies the original email, or if special permissions are needed. This is insufficient for a write operation 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 sentence, which is concise but somewhat terse. It could be restructured to include more information without being verbose, such as mentioning the action's outcome.
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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the forwarding process (e.g., does it create a draft or send? Are there constraints on recipients?). The minimal description leaves gaps, especially given the complexity of email forwarding.
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?
All five parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. However, the description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as how 'body' interacts with the original email content. Baseline score of 3 is 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?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Forward' and the resources 'existing email' and 'new recipients'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like outlook_reply_to_email (which replies to original sender) and outlook_send_email (which composes a new email).
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 basic usage (forwarding an email) but does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reply or reply-all. There is no mention of limitations or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.