Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

While annotations correctly mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It fails to mention the ETag/optimistic concurrency behavior (critical for the If-Match parameter), whether deletion is permanent/recoverable, or side effects (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?

Extremely brief (3 words) but underspecified rather than efficiently concise. The single sentence does not earn its place as it provides no actionable information beyond the tool name itself.

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 conditional deletion support (If-Match) and response control flags, the description is inadequate. It omits permanence implications, error conditions (409 conflicts requiring ETag), and the relationship between includeHeaders/excludeResponse and the missing output schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (properties include 'ETag', 'Path parameter: contactId', etc.), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics, failing to explain that If-Match enables conditional deletes or that contactId must be obtained from list/get operations.

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 'Delete a contact.' restates the tool name (tautology) and fails to specify the Outlook context or distinguish from other contact systems. Sibling tools like 'delete-todo-task' and 'delete-mail-message' share the delete verb, but the description doesn't clarify this targets Outlook contacts specifically.

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 provided on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., update-outlook-contact to clear fields), prerequisites (needing contactId from list-outlook-contacts), or conditions requiring If-Match for concurrency control.

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