Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only, open-world operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic creation action. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns contact ID). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some value by specifying destination options but lacks richer behavioral details.

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 immediately conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information about adding contacts to specific locations.

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?

For a destructive creation tool with no output schema and complex nested parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic what and where but lacks information about return values, error handling, required permissions, or examples of successful usage. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for the description's brevity given the tool's complexity.

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 67%, with detailed descriptions for most body properties. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'body' parameter contains contact data. It doesn't explain required vs optional fields, provide examples, or clarify the relationship between the three top-level parameters. Given the moderate schema coverage, the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a contact') and target resource ('to the root Contacts folder or to the contacts endpoint of another contact folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-outlook-contact' or 'delete-outlook-contact' beyond the obvious create vs update/delete distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-outlook-contact' for modifying existing contacts or 'list-outlook-contacts' for viewing contacts. It mentions two possible destinations (root folder or other folder) but offers no criteria for choosing between them or any prerequisites for successful use.

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