outlook-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive. The description adds useful context about what each action does (shows, saves to disk), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, file size limitations, or what happens if savePath doesn't exist.

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 perfectly concise with three clear sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: overall purpose, action explanations, and disk operation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does. However, it could be more complete by mentioning return formats for list/view actions or error conditions, especially since there's no output schema to document these.

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 schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the purpose of each action parameter, 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 tool's purpose: 'Manage email attachments' with specific verbs for each action (list, view, download). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read-email' or 'search-emails' by focusing exclusively on attachment operations, not general email handling.

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 clear context for when to use each action (list for showing attachments, view for content/metadata, download for saving). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-email' for general message content or 'export' for bulk operations.

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