m365_convert_ex_employee_to_shared

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the three mutations performed (shared mailbox conversion, forwarding with copy, GAL hiding), which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits permission requirements, whether the conversion is reversible, and what happens to existing mailbox content — significant gaps for a destructive offboarding mutation.

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 that packs verb, resource, and all three effects with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the action sequence is readable at a glance.

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. But for an unannotated, irreversible offboarding mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description is thin on preconditions, failure modes, and permissions — an agent could invoke this without understanding the operational risk.

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. It maps loosely onto all three fields — 'departing employee's mailbox' implies legacy_upn, 'forwarding with copy' implies target_forward_email, and 'hides from GAL' implies hide_from_gal — but adds no format or constraint details (UPN syntax, whether forwarding target must be internal), leaving the schema names to do most of the work.

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 names a specific verb ('Converts') and resource (departing employee's mailbox) and enumerates three concrete side effects: conversion to a free SharedMailbox, forwarding with copy, and GAL hiding. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like m365_configure_shared_mailbox and m365_audit_ex_employees.

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 offboarding scenario is implied by 'departing employee,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., license state, mailbox size), and no routing to alternatives such as m365_audit_ex_employees or m365_configure_shared_mailbox. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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