update-outlook-contact

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a specific behavioral note about emailAddresses array replacement, which is beyond annotations but does not cover other update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement, response format).

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: two sentences totaling ~20 words, with no filler. The tip is front-loaded and immediately useful.

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 complex tool with many properties and no output schema, the description is minimal. It provides a key behavioral detail but does not explain expected response, versioning, or error states. However, the rich schema and annotations partially compensate.

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%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds significant value with the tip about emailAddresses being replaced entirely—a detail not evident from the schema alone.

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 'Update the properties of a contact object,' specifying the verb (update) and resource (contact object). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like create-outlook-contact or delete-outlook-contact.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create-outlook-contact, delete-outlook-contact). The tip about emailAddresses replacement is helpful but does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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