update-mailbox-settings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the mutation aspect is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that: it mentions 'Enable, configure, or disable' but does not discuss side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or the confirm gate. The example is helpful but does not disclose consequences.

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 verbose and runs together multiple concerns. It starts with a general statement, then dives into format specifics, and ends with a tip and example. The structure is not front-loaded with the core purpose; it mixes purpose, formatting rules, and an example without clear organization. It could be trimmed significantly without losing value.

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 complex, destructive tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the confirm parameter, error handling, required permissions, or what the response looks like. It also lacks guidance on how to use the other parameters (like workingHours, delegateMeetingMessageDeliveryOptions). The example covers only OOO, leaving other settings under-explained.

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 75%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds crucial format requirements for date/time and time zone (short date/short time, Windows or IANA formats) that are not in the schema, and provides a full example body for Out-of-Office, significantly clarifying usage of nested objects. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool enables, configures, or disables mailbox settings, and gives specific examples of settings (date/time, time zone, OOO). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the read-only sibling get-mailbox-settings; the purpose is evident but not explicitly contrasted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get-mailbox-settings is the read counterpart, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage nuance is format guidance, not selection criteria.

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