m365_tasks_delete

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond them: that only a success indicator comes back ('Returns success only') and that completion is a different operation entirely. It stops short of saying whether the deleted task is recoverable or where it goes, which would be the remaining high-value detail for a destructive call.

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?

Three short clauses, all front-loaded: the action and its scope come first, the disambiguation second, the ID sourcing last. No sentence restates the tool name and none could be dropped without losing routing information.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not do, which sibling to use instead, and that the return value is just a success signal. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both schema fields already document their own provenance ('from m365_tasks_lists', 'from m365_tasks_list in that list'). The description's matching sentence largely repeats that, adding only the pairing constraint ('matching listId/taskId'), so this sits at the baseline for a fully documented two-parameter schema.

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 and resource ('Delete one existing To Do task') plus the scope ('from the specified list'), and explicitly rules out the two nearest misreadings: task completion and list deletion. An agent can distinguish it from m365_tasks_update and m365_tasks_lists without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly and the condition that selects it: 'Use m365_tasks_update with status=\'completed\' to finish a task while keeping it.' It also tells the agent where to source both IDs (m365_tasks_lists and m365_tasks_list), so the caller knows the prerequisite chain.

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