Reassign a catalogue agent's owner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool mutates a live tenant, requires confirm: true, needs CopilotPackages.ReadWrite.All, runs against Graph beta, requires a Microsoft Agent 365 licence, is global-cloud only, and is unverified against a live tenant.

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 dense but front-loads the core action and then adds only essential qualifications: sibling differentiation, mutation confirmation, auth scope, licence and cloud constraints, and a verification caveat. Every sentence carries unique information.

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 destructive, tenant-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all the critical context an agent needs: purpose, alternative, confirmation requirement, permissions, licensing, cloud scope, and implementation maturity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description reinforces that userId is an Entra object id but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Hand ownership'), resource ('agent in the Microsoft 365 agent catalogue'), and actor ('to another user, by their Entra object id'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from the similarly named cs_reassign_agent_owner, which handles the agent owner inside a Power Platform environment.

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 gives the triggering scenario ('Used when the owner leaves the organisation') and names the alternative for a different ownership context ('The agent's owner inside a Power Platform environment is cs_reassign_agent_owner'). It also states the confirm requirement for live changes, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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