outlook-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining what each action does (retrieves vs configures specific settings). Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description clarifies the specific configuration capabilities. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence with three clear action-purpose pairs. Every clause earns its place by mapping actions to specific functionality. It's front-loaded with the overall purpose and immediately details the three available actions.

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 multi-action tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering basic behavioral hints, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what each action does but doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or detailed behavioral nuances that would be helpful given the tool's complexity.

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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by mentioning what settings each action affects (language, timezone, etc.), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details 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 as managing mailbox settings with specific actions (get, set-auto-replies, set-working-hours). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on mailbox configuration rather than email operations, contacts, or events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'manage-focused-inbox' which is also a settings tool.

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 implies usage through action descriptions (get retrieves, set-auto-replies configures, set-working-hours configures), providing basic context for when to use each action. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling settings tools like 'manage-focused-inbox', and doesn't mention prerequisites or constraints.

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