Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

The description implies mutation (consistent with destructiveHint:true and readOnlyHint:false), but adds no behavioral details beyond annotations. It doesn't clarify whether this is a partial update (PATCH semantics) or requires the full object, nor what happens to omitted fields.

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 not verbose, but at 6 words it is underspecified rather than truly concise. It fails to earn its place by providing specific, actionable information beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters with nested objects containing 30+ fields) and lack of output schema, the description is inadequate. It provides no guidance on the update semantics, required permissions, or how to construct the body payload.

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 description coverage is 75% (high), establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'properties' which vaguely maps to the body parameter, but adds no clarification for contactId path parameter or the includeHeaders/excludeResponse options beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'Update' and mentions 'contact object', but fails to specify this is specifically for Outlook (the name implies it, but the description doesn't). It also doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like create-outlook-contact or delete-outlook-contact, and is close to a tautology of the tool name.

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 this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create-outlook-contact for new contacts), nor prerequisites like obtaining a contactId from list-outlook-contacts first.

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