connect_m365_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it omits the behavior that matters most for a connect tool: that it likely launches an interactive OAuth/browser sign-in, may block on user action, and what state exists on success or failure. Only the add-another/re-auth nuance is disclosed.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the secondary cases tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical slightly muddies the lead statement.

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 zero-parameter connect action with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is minimally viable: it says what happens and roughly when. It does not explain the interactive sign-in flow, expected follow-up calls (e.g. list_m365_accounts, set_default_m365_account), or failure modes, leaving real gaps for an agent driving the call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter information is missing.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Connect a Microsoft 365 account'), which cleanly separates it from disconnect_m365_account, list_m365_accounts and set_default_m365_account by action. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the resulting state, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

The parenthetical 'or add another one, or sign one in again' gives useful context for when to call it (first-time link, multi-account, re-authentication), which is more than most connect tools offer. However, it never points to the alternatives such as disconnect_m365_account or list_m365_accounts, nor states prerequisites, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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