Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, which already inform the agent that this is a mutable, potentially destructive operation with open-world semantics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what 'destructive' entails (e.g., overwriting existing properties), rate limits, or authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations but provides minimal additional 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple declarative statement, though its brevity limits informational value. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action.

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 (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and annotations indicating destructive behavior), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the update mechanism (e.g., partial vs. full updates), response format, error handling, or how to use parameters like includeHeaders. With rich schema but no output schema, more context is needed for effective use.

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 high (80%), so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'properties of a todoTask object', which doesn't clarify the complex nested structure (e.g., body, todoTaskListId, todoTaskId) or optional parameters like includeHeaders and excludeResponse. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 a todoTask object' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('todoTask object'), but it's generic and doesn't distinguish this tool from other update tools like 'update-calendar-event' or 'update-outlook-contact'. It specifies what is being updated ('properties') but lacks specificity about which properties or 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a todoTaskListId and todoTaskId), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create-todo-task' or 'delete-todo-task'. Usage is implied from the tool name but not explicitly stated.

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