Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context not in the structured data: deleting a meeting as organizer sends cancellation messages to attendees. It also notes the event is removed 'from the containing calendar', clarifying scope.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The first states the core operation; the second explains the critical side effect for meetings. No redundancy, appropriately front-loaded.

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 destructive operation with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the essential business logic (removal + cancellation behavior). No output schema exists, but the description appropriately focuses on the mutation side effects rather than return values.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents all four parameters including the ETag concurrency control (If-Match). The description correctly relies on the structured schema and does not duplicate parameter documentation, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 core action ('Removes the specified event') and resource ('containing calendar'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'delete-specific-calendar-event', leaving ambiguity about which deletion tool to select.

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 valuable behavioral guidance about meeting cancellation side effects, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'delete-specific-calendar-event' or 'update-calendar-event' (for cancellations).

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