update-outlook-contact

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds one specific, non-obvious behavioral detail: the emailAddresses array is replaced entirely. This is valuable because it warns against partial updates. However, it does not disclose other side effects (e.g., impact on unmentioned fields) or the confirm gate, though that is covered in the schema.

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 extremely concise: a two-sentence declaration with a front-loaded purpose and a practical tip. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (nested objects, many optional fields, destructive nature), the description is minimal. It lacks guidance on when to use it, what happens on partial updates, error handling, or expected response format. The tip helps but does not make the tool complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, most parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning specifically for emailAddresses by clarifying its replacement semantics, which is beyond the schema. It does not add semantics for other parameters, but the schema covers them 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update the properties of a contact object.' It distinguishes from create/delete/get by the update action, and the tool name makes the 'Outlook' scope explicit. It could be more specific about the contact type (e.g., Outlook contact) but is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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 like create-outlook-contact, delete-outlook-contact, or other update tools. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or which scenarios are appropriate. The only extra content is a tip about emailAddresses, not usage context.

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