Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, establishing it as a mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no mention of PATCH semantics, what happens to unspecified fields, required permissions, or effects on linked resources.

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 underspecified for a complex nested-object API with 40+ fields, masquerading as conciseness. For a tool with this parameter depth, the description fails to front-load critical usage patterns.

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?

Inadequate for the complexity: handles task recurrence, attachments, and checklist items via nested objects, yet the description offers no hints about these capabilities or typical update workflows.

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, the input schema already documents most fields (title, status, dueDateTime, etc.). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, 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 states the verb (Update) and resource (todoTask object), but remains generic by saying 'properties' without examples or scope. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'create-todo-task' or 'delete-todo-task' beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 versus 'create-todo-task' or other task management tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing IDs from list-todo-tasks) or partial vs full update semantics.

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