outlook_create_recurring_event

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

No annotations are present, and the description gives no behavioral context: permissions required, side effects (e.g., sending invites), recurrence pattern constraints, or return value. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about the tool's effects.

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, which is concise but under-specified. It could benefit from a few more sentences to clarify recurrence scope or required fields without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 8 parameters, nested objects (start, end, recurrencePattern), and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what is returned, how recurring series are handled, or how to set the recurrence pattern correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as dateTime format expectations or recurrence pattern structure. Baseline score of 3 applies because schema handles parameter documentation without additional elaboration.

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 'Create a recurring calendar event' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (recurring calendar event), distinguishing it from non-recurring event creation (e.g., outlook_create_event). However, it lacks specificity about the target calendar (user's default) or whether it creates a series.

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 like outlook_create_event or outlook_schedule_online_meeting. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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