outlook-mcp

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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral context that it creates events, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral details like whether it sends invitations to attendees, what happens with invalid time formats, or error handling for permission issues.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant details already covered in the schema or annotations.

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 creation tool with good schema coverage and clear annotations, the description provides the basic 'what' but lacks important context. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe what gets returned (event ID, confirmation, error details). It also doesn't address common usage scenarios, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling event 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, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden adequately.

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 ('creates') and resource ('new calendar event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage-event' or 'list-events', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific creation tool versus other event-related 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'manage-event' and 'list-events' available, there's no indication whether this is the primary creation method, whether it should be used for simple events while 'manage-event' handles complex ones, or any prerequisites for successful invocation.

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