update-outlook-contact

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

The tip about emailAddresses being replaced entirely reveals a key behavior not covered by annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). However, the description omits other important behaviors: it does not mention the confirm parameter for destructive operations, the overwrite behavior of displayName, or that the tool returns the updated contact object. Annotations already indicate destructiveness, so the description adds moderate value.

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 exceptionally concise: one clear sentence plus a tip. Every word serves a purpose, and the critical information (replacement behavior) is front-loaded in the tip. No fluff or repetition.

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 (many properties, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, required fields (contactId), or the overall update behavior (e.g., which fields are updatable, handling of null). The tip is helpful but insufficient for comprehensive understanding.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 80%, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the emailAddresses parameter (replace behavior) beyond the schema's simple description. For other parameters, the description provides no additional semantics, but the tip alone elevates the score.

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 states 'Update the properties of a contact object,' clearly indicating a verb and resource. The title 'update-outlook-contact' further reinforces this, distinguishing it from create, get, delete, and list operations among siblings. However, the description does not explicitly differentiate from other contact tools, limiting clarity.

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 a behavioral tip but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-outlook-contact' or 'get-outlook-contact.' There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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