Update a checklist item in an Outlook task by marking it checked or renaming it; only supplied fields change.
Update a checklist item (partial patch — only provided fields change).
is_checked=True marks a sub-step done; Graph maintains the checked
timestamp from it. Renaming passes display_name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| is_checked | No | ||
| display_name | No | ||
| checklist_item_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.22.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: only supplied fields change, and Graph maintains the checked timestamp when is_checked=True. It omits any auth or error-handling detail, but the added context is substantive.
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?
Very short and front-loaded — the mutation semantics lead, followed by the two field-specific notes. No filler, though the line-break formatting is slightly ragged for such a brief text.
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?
No output schema and 0% parameter coverage mean the description carries the burden. It covers the patch model and the two mutable fields well but says nothing about the ID parameters' relationships or what a successful call returns, leaving real gaps for a 5-param tool.
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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains is_checked and display_name meaningfully, but list_id, task_id and checklist_item_id are left undocumented beyond their names. Partial compensation only.
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 ('Update a checklist item') and immediately qualifies the semantics as a partial patch. This distinguishes it from add/delete checklist item siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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 parenthetical 'partial patch — only provided fields change' tells the agent how to invoke it (supply only the fields to alter), and the follow-on sentences clarify the two mutation modes. No explicit when-not or sibling routing, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.