Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations explicitly mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only. The description confirms the creation behavior and mentions folder targeting. However, it lacks disclosure of conflict handling (e.g., duplicate IDs), rate limits, or implications of openWorldHint: true.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant content. However, for a complex tool with a large nested body schema and behavioral nuances, this brevity approaches under-specification.

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 description covers the basic operation adequately but lacks critical context for a mutation tool: error handling behavior, return value structure (no output schema exists), and folder targeting mechanics. Given the rich input schema, this minimalism leaves significant 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 67% schema description coverage, the schema documents most body properties. The description mentions 'another contact folder' but fails to explain HOW to specify the target folder (no folderId parameter is visible) or the purpose of includeHeaders/excludeResponse flags.

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 uses a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('contact'), and distinguishes scope by specifying root folder vs. other contact folders. However, 'Add' is slightly less precise than 'Create', and it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like update-outlook-contact.

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 explains WHERE the contact can be added (root or other folders) but provides no guidance on WHEN to use this tool versus alternatives like update-outlook-contact, or prerequisites needed to target a specific folder.

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