m365_configure_shared_mailbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose whether grants are additive or replace existing permissions, whether permissions can be revoked, required permissions, or side effects of the automapping/sent-item toggles.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key configurable surface listed. Efficient, though it crams four concepts into a parenthetical rather than explaining any of them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description omits permissions model, prerequisites, and toggle semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 compensate for five undocumented parameters. It partially does by mapping the permission concepts (FullAccess, SendAs, automapping toggle, copy sent items) to four parameters, but gives no array syntax, default meaning, or explanation of identity.

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?

States a specific verb (configures) and resource (shared mailbox permissions) and enumerates the four permission aspects handled. It is distinguishable from siblings like m365_convert_ex_employee_to_shared or m365_get_mailbox_info, though it doesn't explicitly name those neighbors.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as m365_convert_ex_employee_to_shared, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. required admin roles) or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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