outlook-mcp

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint: false) but non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds value by specifying it works on 'email message(s)' and supports batch operations, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral details like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens when applying categories to non-existent messages.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key actions and target resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering basic safety (non-destructive mutation), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers what the tool does at a high level but lacks important context about error conditions, return values, or integration with the broader email management system represented by sibling tools.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying batch capability ('message(s)') and the three action types, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 verb ('apply, add, or remove') and resource ('categories on email message(s)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage-category' or 'update-email', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage-category' or 'update-email'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for applying categories to emails, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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