Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. While the description doesn't explicitly state this is a destructive operation, it implies mutation with 'Update'. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, but doesn't provide details about what gets updated, side effects, or response behavior. No contradiction exists.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and annotations, though it could benefit from more contextual information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters (3 required), 80% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover safety aspects, but the description doesn't explain what 'plannerTaskDetails' represents, what happens during update, or error conditions. It meets basic requirements but leaves significant contextual gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'properties' generally but doesn't specify which properties (like checklist, description, previewType, references) or explain parameter relationships. It adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already documents through parameter descriptions.

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 plannerTaskDetails object' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('plannerTaskDetails object'), but it's somewhat vague about what specific properties are involved and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update-planner-task' or 'update-todo-task'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope.

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 like 'update-planner-task' or other update tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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