Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive (destructiveHint: true), non-read-only (readOnlyHint: false), open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't explain what 'destructive' means here (e.g., data persistence, side effects), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. With annotations covering basic traits, the description adds minimal value but lacks depth.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and annotations that only hint at behavior, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the response format, error conditions, or how to interpret the 'body' parameter's extensive structure, leaving significant gaps for a creation tool.

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 75%, with detailed docs for most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying a 'body' and 'todoTaskListId' are needed. It doesn't clarify parameter relationships, defaults, or usage examples, so it relies on the schema without compensating for the 25% coverage gap.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new task object in a specified todoTaskList'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create-planner-task' or 'update-todo-task', which would require more specificity about what makes this todo-task creation unique.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing todoTaskList), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create-planner-task' or 'update-todo-task', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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