outlook-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description clarifies that 'delete' action removes overrides (which could be considered destructive despite the annotation). It also explains default behaviors (action=list default) and action-specific requirements, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loads the purpose and efficiently explains the three actions with their effects. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space.

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, 3 actions) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't describe return values, error conditions, or what 'overrides' actually are in the Focused Inbox context. With no output schema, some information about expected results would be helpful for completeness.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by mentioning that 'action=list (default) shows overrides' and specifying which actions require emailAddress, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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: 'Manage Focused Inbox overrides' with specific actions (list, set, delete). It uses a specific verb ('manage') and resource ('Focused Inbox overrides'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage-category' or 'manage-rules' beyond the resource name.

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 (list shows, set creates/updates, delete removes), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage-rules' or 'mailbox-settings'. It lacks context about when Focused Inbox management is appropriate versus other email organization methods.

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