Removes a specified inbox rule from a Microsoft 365 mailbox by rule name or identity, enabling administrators to clean up unwanted or outdated mail rules.
Removes a specific inbox rule from a mailbox by its RuleIdentity or Name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_upn | Yes | ||
| rule_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says only that the rule is removed; it omits that this is an irreversible mutation, what permissions are required, and any error behavior. A destructive operation with zero annotation coverage needs more disclosure.
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 tight sentence with the action and key front-loaded. No wasted words, though brevity here contributes to the transparency gaps.
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 a destructive mailbox mutation with no annotations and completely undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent short of what it needs to invoke this safely and correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions identifying the rule by 'RuleIdentity or Name' (which loosely maps to rule_name and hints at user_upn's mailbox scope) but does not explain the expected UPN format or how the rule name is obtained, and the 'RuleIdentity' wording does not match the schema's single rule_name parameter.
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 gives a specific verb (removes) and resource (inbox rule) and states the identifying key. It implicitly differentiates from m365_list_inbox_rules and m365_list_transport_rules by naming the object, but never explicitly contrasts with them.
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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., listing rules first to obtain the rule name), and no note about what happens when the rule does not exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.