outlook_delete_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: it does not say whether the delete is permanent or recoverable, what happens to attached files/checklist items, or whether a nonexistent task errors out.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than genuinely 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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It should at minimum clarify permanence, the role of list_id, and any auth or scope requirements.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it does not. It never explains that task_id is required and list_id is optional, nor what happens when list_id is omitted — a real ambiguity given the same task name may exist in multiple lists.

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 (delete) and resource (task in a Microsoft To Do list), distinguishing it from nearby siblings like outlook_delete_checklist_item and outlook_delete_task_attachment by scoping to the task itself. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as outlook_complete_task (closing out a task) or outlook_delete_checklist_item, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that deletion is for removal rather than completion.

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