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, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Create'. It doesn't mention that this is a write operation (implied by 'create'), what permissions might be needed, potential side effects, or how it interacts with planner plans/tasks. With annotations covering basic hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its lack of helpfulness. For conciseness alone, it scores perfectly.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's role in a planner context, required inputs like 'planId' or 'bucketId', or what 'create' entails operationally. For a destructive creation tool with rich schema, more context is needed.

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%, and the description provides no parameter information. The schema documents parameters like 'body' (with nested properties), 'includeHeaders', and 'excludeResponse' in detail. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the 33% gap but doesn't detract either.

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 'Create a new plannerTask' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create-todo-task' or 'create-calendar-event', nor does it clarify what a 'plannerTask' entails beyond the obvious.

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. There are multiple sibling creation tools (e.g., create-todo-task, create-calendar-event), but no indication of when this specific planner task creation is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose other tools.

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