outlook-mcp

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing destructive actions (decline, cancel, delete). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that 'delete permanently removes an event' and clarifying user roles (e.g., 'cancels an event you organised'), enhancing behavioral understanding without contradiction.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, using three brief sentences that directly explain each action without redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (destructive actions with user role implications), annotations cover safety (destructiveHint), and schema fully documents parameters. The description adequately explains the actions and their contexts, but lacks output details (no output schema) and does not address potential side effects like notifications or permissions, leaving minor gaps.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, as it only mentions the action parameter's meanings without detailing eventId or comment. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 with specific verbs (decline, cancel, delete) and resource (calendar event), distinguishing it from siblings like create-event (creation) and list-events (read-only). It explicitly lists the three actions, making the function unambiguous.

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 (e.g., 'decline declines an invitation', 'cancel cancels an event you organised'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like create-event for creation or list-events for viewing. The guidance is specific to the actions but lacks broader contextual exclusions.

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