ForIT Microsoft Graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ability to target specific accounts without switching (which is useful context), but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with destructive operations (DELETE/PATCH/PUT). For a raw API tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement upfront followed by organized documentation sections. While comprehensive, some information (like the permissions reference link) might be more appropriate in annotations rather than the description. Most sentences earn their place by providing actionable guidance.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides good basic context but has significant gaps. It explains what the tool does and provides documentation links, but doesn't address authentication requirements, response formats, error handling, or the implications of different HTTP methods. For a raw API execution tool, this leaves the agent without crucial operational knowledge.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by providing examples of common endpoints and OData query parameters, but doesn't significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Execute a raw Microsoft Graph API request' which provides a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('Microsoft Graph API request'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list-accounts or login by describing its unique capability to make direct API calls rather than managing authentication or accounts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Supports any Graph API endpoint' and 'Can target specific account without switching.' It also references the sibling tool 'list-accounts' for obtaining account IDs, creating clear alternatives and prerequisites. The documentation links further clarify appropriate usage contexts.

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