outlook_create_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains default list_id behavior and acceptable importance values, but does not mention side effects, return value, permissions, rate limits, or idempotency. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and includes an example. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured to list all parameters explicitly.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings. The description covers basic usage but omits return value, recurrence format, and reminder behavior, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must heavily compensate. It explains due format, importance values, and list_id default, but fails to describe the body, reminder boolean, or the recurrence object structure. Key parameters are left ambiguous.

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 'Create a Microsoft To Do task' with a specific verb and resource. The example reinforces the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_update_task or outlook_complete_task.

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 use for creation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_update_task or outlook_list_tasks. No exclusion or context for proper usage is provided.

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