Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive (destructiveHint: true) write operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Delete,' which aligns with and reinforces the destructive nature. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context like whether deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related data).

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate given the annotations cover safety (destructiveHint: true). However, it lacks details on success/error responses, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. The context signals show 5 parameters, but the description doesn't address optional ones like If-Match or includeHeaders.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the need for a todoTask object, which is covered by the required todoTaskId and todoTaskListId parameters in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 todoTask object'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete-calendar-event or delete-outlook-contact, which would require specifying it's specifically for todo tasks rather than other resource types.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to identify the task first), error conditions, or when to choose delete-todo-task over other todo-related tools like update-todo-task. It's a basic statement with no usage context.

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