outlook_create_task

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds real value: it discloses the reminder/due dependency and the non-obvious fact that Graph silently drops a reminder with no time. It also explains relative-offset semantics and default-list fallback, though it omits auth/rate-limit 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?

Front-loaded with verb, then a concrete example, then the gotchas. Dense but every sentence adds a distinct constraint; the backtick-heavy formatting is slightly cluttered but not wasteful.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only safety annotations, the description supplies the key behavioral gotchas and most parameter semantics. It falls short on the recurrence object format and body, which an agent would need for those fields.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so for due, importance (enum values), reminder, list_id, and title. It leaves body and especially recurrence (a nested object) unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given the low 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a Microsoft To Do task') and enumerates the optional attributes. The 'Microsoft To Do task' domain cleanly separates it from calendar/contact/draft creation siblings, so an agent can route without inspecting schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the self-evident create action, and the reminder/due coupling acts as a precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use routing against siblings like outlook_update_task or outlook_create_event, and no exclusions.

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