Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

While annotations correctly flag this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), the description adds no behavioral context beyond this safety signal. It fails to explain the If-Match parameter's role in optimistic concurrency, whether deletions are permanent, or if calendar attendees are notified.

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?

Though brief (five words), the description wastes space on technical jargon ('navigation property') and conversational filler ('for me') that convey no actionable information. The sentence does not earn its place effectively.

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 concurrency control (If-Match) and response filtering options, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the critical 'If-Match' requirement for deletions or the impact of the boolean flags on the response.

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 already documents all five parameters including the ETag concurrency control. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, meeting the baseline score of 3 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 uses opaque OData terminology ('navigation property') that describes implementation rather than user intent. While it mentions 'Delete' and 'events', it does not clearly state that this removes a specific calendar event by ID, nor does it distinguish from the sibling 'delete-calendar-event' tool.

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 the sibling 'delete-calendar-event' or what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing the event ID). The description offers no information about concurrency control requirements or recovery options.

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