m365_update_user_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation but does not state permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, or how the tool treats omitted parameters (e.g., whether they are left unchanged or cleared). For a directory-mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates the affected fields without waste.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, but the overall definition is incomplete for a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations. Missing details include the required user identifier, update semantics, and any behavioral context beyond the field list.

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 lists four updateable attributes (department, job title, mobile phone, business phone) but completely omits the required user_upn parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to identify the target user. It also does not explain the meaning of null defaults or the partial-update behavior.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('user directory attributes') and enumerates the specific fields affected. It does not explicitly differentiate from the read-only sibling m365_get_user_profile, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description provides only what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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