Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. Missing crucial disclosure that checklist and references parameters require specifically formatted object structures, and lacks explanation of the ETag concurrency behavior implied by the If-Match requirement.

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?

Single sentence is not wasteful, but is excessively terse for the complexity of the operation. Fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test by providing insufficient information to distinguish this from similar tools or explain critical prerequisites.

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 nested object schema, destructive nature, ETag requirement, and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. Should explain the relationship between plannerTask and plannerTaskDetails, and the consequences of the update.

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 80% schema coverage at the top level, the structural documentation is adequate. However, the description adds no semantic value regarding the complex nested body structure or the special handling required for the empty checklist/references objects (additionalProperties: false).

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?

States the action (Update) and resource (plannerTaskDetails object) but uses API jargon without plain-English explanation. Fails to distinguish from sibling 'update-planner-task' (which updates the task entity vs its details entity), leaving ambiguity about which to use.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'update-planner-task'. Critically omits that the If-Match/ETag parameter is required for optimistic concurrency control, which is essential for successful invocation of this Microsoft Graph API.

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