Reply to an existing Outlook email by providing its message ID and optional body. Enables AI agents to send responses programmatically.
Reply to 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 to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action with no disclosure of side effects, required permissions, threading behavior, or whether the reply is sent immediately. This is insufficient for a write operation.
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 concise sentence with no redundant words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include essential context without adding waste.
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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on how the reply is composed, whether attachments are supported, and the behavior of the comment parameter. The agent would need to infer details from the schema alone.
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% with all parameters having descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 'Reply to an existing email' clearly states the action (reply) and the resource (existing email). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like outlook_reply_all and outlook_forward_email, which are different actions.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as outlook_reply_all or outlook_forward_email. The description does not mention the context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.