outlook-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning 'Subject to rate limits and recipient allowlist when configured', which are not covered by the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not contradict them but enhances understanding with operational constraints. It could improve by detailing error handling or response formats.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by practical guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 with 8 parameters and annotations indicating destructiveHint=true, the description is mostly complete by covering purpose, usage tips, and behavioral constraints. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., success status or preview data), slightly reducing completeness for a 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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning or syntax details for parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining format specifics for 'body' or interactions between parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without additional value.

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 'compose and send' and the resource 'email', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'read-email' or 'search-emails' by emphasizing the sending action, which is not implied in those other tools.

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 usage with 'Use dryRun=true to preview without sending', offering practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-email' or 'search-emails', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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