Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true (indicating permanent deletion) and readOnlyHint=false (confirming it's a mutation). The description adds minimal value beyond this, as 'Delete' inherently implies destructive action. It doesn't disclose additional context like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a contact'), making it immediately scannable and understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a destructive mutation with 4 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover safety (destructiveHint=true), but the description doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or dependencies. For a deletion tool, more context on outcomes would be helpful, though annotations provide some coverage.

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 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., contactId as path parameter, If-Match for ETag). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining ETag usage or response options. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a contact'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-calendar-event' or 'delete-mail-attachment', but the resource specificity ('contact') provides implicit distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 (like needing an existing contact), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'get-outlook-contact' for verification or 'create-outlook-contact' for creation. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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