outlook_list_events_delta

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the delta token mechanism, the need for start/end on first call, the meaning of is_deleted and has_more fields, and that the cursor encodes the window thereafter. It lacks details on rate limits or error handling, but covers core behavior well.

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 concise, with two brief paragraphs and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity of a delta endpoint and no output schema, the description covers the return fields (is_deleted, has_more) and explains the delta token flow. It could optionally mention that the returned events have the same structure as list_events, but it is not essential.

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 compensate. It explains start and end as ISO 8601 and required on first call, and mentions delta_token. However, it does not describe the page_size parameter, which is present in the schema but not explained in the description.

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: listing calendar event changes since the last call. It uses specific verbs and resources: 'List only calendar event changes'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'outlook_list_events' by highlighting that it is for polling/recurring agents and cheaper.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use this for polling/recurring agents — typically 10x cheaper than outlook_list_events after the first call. Use outlook_list_events for one-shot queries.' It includes an example explaining the first call and subsequent calls with delta_token, making usage clear.

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