m365_create_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose permissions, account selection, duplicate handling, whether the contact is created immediately, or what the response contains.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately concise, though it provides no additional structure beyond the trigger condition.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is too thin. It tells the agent when to use the tool but not how contact details are supplied or what behavior to expect, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, though the empty schema means the agent receives no field-level guidance from either source.

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 ('added') and resource ('new contact' in 'Microsoft 365 / Outlook contacts'), so the agent can distinguish this from update, search, or retrieval tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is clear.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants a new contact added.' However, it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as m365_update_contact for existing contacts or m365_search_contacts.

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