outlook-mcp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a non-destructive, non-read-only tool. The description adds useful context about the three specific actions and the 'force' parameter behavior, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens during OAuth flow.

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 and well-structured in a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and all three actions. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 an authentication tool with no output schema and annotations covering basic safety aspects, the description provides adequate but not complete context. It explains the actions but doesn't describe return values, error conditions, or authentication state persistence. Given the complexity of authentication operations, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds some semantic context by explaining what each action does, but doesn't provide additional parameter details beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 as 'Manage authentication with Microsoft Graph API' and specifies three distinct actions (status, authenticate, about), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It effectively distinguishes this authentication management tool from sibling tools that handle email, events, contacts, and other operations.

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 (check auth state, start OAuth flow, show server info) and includes default behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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