Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'select' but doesn't clarify what this means behaviorally: does it set a default account for subsequent operations, require authentication changes, have side effects, or affect session state? This lack of detail leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, 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 complexity of account selection (likely involving session state or authentication changes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after selection, return values, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'list-accounts'. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'accountId' documented as 'The account ID to select'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 ('select') and resource ('Microsoft account'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-accounts' (which lists accounts) and 'remove-account' (which deletes accounts), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. However, it lacks specificity about what 'select' entails operationally.

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 to list accounts first), context (e.g., switching between multiple accounts), or exclusions. Without this, an agent might misuse it or overlook necessary steps.

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