m365_tasks_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the word 'Update', such as whether it performs partial or full updates, what fields get overwritten, or any side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds zero value beyond them.

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 a single short sentence of four words, with no redundancy or wasted content. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 an update mutation tool with no output schema, the description lacks essential context: it does not explain what happens after the update (e.g., return value), whether only specified fields are updated, or error conditions. The annotation destructiveHint=true suggests data loss but the description doesn't clarify this, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'New due date (ISO 8601)', 'Task list ID'). The description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning, so it relies fully on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing task', unambiguously indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create and delete by the verb, but does not elaborate on scope or specific updatable fields.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as m365_tasks_create or m365_tasks_delete. The phrase 'existing task' implies a prerequisite of an existing task ID, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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