outlook_update_task

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the genuinely useful PATCH semantics (only supplied fields change), but says nothing about permissions, whether null/empty values clear a field, or whether omitted fields are preserved server-side.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler that carries the most important non-obvious fact (partial patch) first.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations covering side effects, the definition leaves too much undefined for a 6-parameter mutation: field formats, list_id reassignment semantics, and error behavior are all absent.

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 6 parameters, so the description needs to compensate but does not. It never mentions the patchable fields (title, body, due, importance, list_id) or formats such as the expected date format or valid importance values; only the generic 'provided fields change' rule is stated.

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 (update) and resource (To Do task) plus the key qualifier that this is a partial patch. It is distinguishable from outlook_create_task / outlook_delete_task, though the boundary with outlook_complete_task is left implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus outlook_complete_task (set completed status) or when not to use it. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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