outlook-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description clarifies specific state changes: read status modifications, flag setting/clearing, and flag completion. It also implies batch capability for flag operations. 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using just one sentence fragment that efficiently enumerates all action behaviors. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. The structure immediately communicates the tool's core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 action types) and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides adequate context. It explains what state changes occur for each action, which complements the annotations well. The main gap is lack of output information (no output schema), but the description focuses appropriately on the mutation behaviors.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by mentioning action types and implying id/ids usage patterns, but doesn't provide significant 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 as updating email state with specific action types (mark-read, mark-unread, flag, unflag, complete). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like read-email or send-email by focusing on state modifications rather than reading or sending. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar state-update tools like apply-category or manage-focused-inbox.

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 enumeration but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of manage-category for flag-related operations or how it relates to read-email for status updates. The context is clear (email state updates), but no explicit guidance on tool selection is provided.

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