Updates fields of an existing Microsoft 365 or Outlook contact when a user requests a change. Use it to edit contact details such as name, email, phone, or other stored information.
Use this when the user wants to change a contact of their Microsoft 365 / Outlook contacts: only the fields...
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.430Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this is a partial field update or a full replace, whether it requires an existing contact ID, what happens to unspecified fields, or whether the change is reversible — all critical for a mutation tool.
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 text is short but only because it is truncated mid-sentence, ending on a dangling colon-and-ellipsis. It is under-specified rather than concise, and the one useful scoping phrase it promises never lands.
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 write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema, the description should explain at minimum how a contact is identified and which fields can be changed. It delivers neither, so an agent cannot safely invoke it.
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 schema is empty (0 properties), which is itself a gap for an update tool, and the description was cut off mid-clause exactly where field semantics were about to be listed ("only the fields..."). Nothing about how to address the contact or which fields are mutable survives, so no value is added beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: change a contact in Microsoft 365 / Outlook contacts. The verb "change" together with the m365_/outlook_ contact family makes it distinguishable from m365_create_contact and m365_get_contact, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
"Use this when the user wants to change a contact" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is better than nothing. But there is no when-not guidance, no mention of m365_get_contact (to read first) or m365_create_contact (for new contacts), and the sentence breaks off before any clarification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.