outlook_check_calendar_permissions

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

No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral details such as error handling, authorization requirements, or return format. The description is minimal and fails to add value beyond the action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not clarify what the output looks like (e.g., list of permissions, boolean) or what constitutes a 'permission check'. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The sole parameter 'calendarId' is described in the schema as 'ID of the calendar to check'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, and coverage is 100%, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Check') and the resource ('permissions for a calendar'). It is distinct from sibling tools like outlook_check_availability or outlook_get_calendar_view.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name, but no exclusions or context are provided.

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