Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive (destructiveHint: true), non-read-only (readOnlyHint: false), open-world (openWorldHint: true) operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but it also adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't mention that this is a PATCH-style update (implied by openWorldHint), what happens when certain fields are omitted, or any permission requirements. The description adds little value beyond what annotations already provide.

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 - a single sentence with no wasted words. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure is front-loaded and direct. Every word serves the minimal purpose of stating the tool's function.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to handle the If-Match header for concurrency control, or provide any examples of typical update scenarios. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without extensive trial and error.

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 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'properties of plannerTask object', which is already obvious from the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters like body, If-Match, and plannerTaskId, or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive 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 'Update the properties of plannerTask object' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update-planner-task'. It doesn't specify what kind of properties can be updated or provide any meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'update-planner-task-details' or 'update-todo-task'. The description fails to convey the specific scope or nature of the update operation.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other update tools (like update-planner-task-details), or any contextual constraints. The agent would have to guess based on the tool name alone.

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