Mail Reply Message

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

The description reveals no behavioral traits beyond the sparse annotations. It does not state that replying typically sends a message, whether accounts must be authorized, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. With annotations carrying minimal information, the description fails to compensate.

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 short but under-specified; the single sentence merely names the tool and its exposure mechanism. It does not earn its place because it adds no functional information.

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 mail operation with four parameters, no usage guidance, no behavioral disclosure, and no parameter explanation, the description is far from sufficient. The agent would need to guess how reply_all and from_account interact and what the output represents.

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%, so the description must explain parameters like message_id, body, reply_all, and from_account. It does none of this, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from parameter names.

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 only says 'Delegated Apple domain tool ... exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP,' which restates the tool name and provides no verb or resource describing what the tool actually does. The title 'Mail Reply Message' carries the only semantic hint, but the description itself is essentially tautological.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_reply_latest_in_thread, mail_forward_message, or mail_compose_draft. The description is context-free and provides no exclusions or selection criteria.

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