outlook-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds valuable context about what each action does (e.g., 'delete removes a category'). However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens when deleting a category with existing data. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 (one sentence with four action clauses) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause earns its place by specifying distinct functionality. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, multiple actions including mutations) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic actions but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or important constraints. With annotations providing some safety context but no output schema, more completeness would be helpful for a multi-action mutation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions the four action types but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides about parameter usage or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 manages master categories with four specific actions (list, create, update, delete). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'apply-category' by focusing on management rather than application, and from 'manage-contact' by specifying category resources.

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 listing, create for creating, etc.), but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'apply-category' or provide exclusion criteria. The default action (list) is mentioned, giving some usage guidance.

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