Sends a reply to every recipient of an existing Outlook email, keeping the whole thread informed with one action.
Reply to all recipients of an existing email
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Reply message body | |
| comment | No | Optional comment for the reply | |
| bodyType | No | Body content type | text |
| messageId | Yes | The ID of the email to reply all to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the reply is sent immediately, permission requirements, or effects on the original email. The description is too brief to compensate for missing annotations.
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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise but could be slightly expanded for context without being verbose.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, threading behavior, or when the action takes effect, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately describes each parameter.
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 and resource: 'Reply to all recipients of an existing email'. This distinguishes it from the sibling outlook_reply_to_email which replies only to the 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_reply_to_email. The description relies on the name for differentiation, which may be insufficient for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.