account

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by noting that 'remove' is irreversible and 'logout' preserves configuration. This goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose details like rate limits, authorization requirements, or failure behavior.

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 well-structured: a brief purpose statement, an explanation of the verb list format, and then concise bullet-like lines for each operation. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the tool's scope.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 7 operations) and no output schema, the description covers all operations and their required parameters. It directs to help for full details but lacks information on return values or error handling, which would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by grouping parameters per verb and indicating which are required for each operation, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool is for 'Account management for Microsoft accounts connected to the Outlook MCP server.' It lists specific operations (add, remove, list, login, logout, refresh, help) with brief explanations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mail, calendar, and system.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use each operation, including required parameters and a reference to operation='help' for full details. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the sibling tool names (mail, calendar, system) make the context clear.

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