Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (implying a write operation), openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context beyond them—it hints at file content streaming but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 vague sentence that fails to convey purpose or usage, making it under-specified rather than concise. It doesn't front-load key information and wastes space on an unhelpful statement, so it scores low for ineffective brevity.

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, no output schema) and annotations that cover basic safety, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details like what the tool actually does, expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an upload operation with multiple parameters.

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 80%, providing good documentation for parameters like 'includeHeaders' and 'excludeResponse'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already covers, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles most of the semantic burden without extra value from the description.

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 'The content stream, if the item represents a file' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'upload-file-content' without specifying the action. It fails to clearly state what the tool does (e.g., uploads file content to a specific location) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'download-onedrive-file-content' or 'create-onenote-page'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'create-onenote-page' or 'download-onedrive-file-content', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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