m365_tasks_update

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: omitted fields are preserved, at least one editable field is required, and completion is a status assignment rather than a delete. It also states the return payload ('success and taskId'). The one gap is that annotations declare destructiveHint=true while the description frames the tool as purely additive — it never explains what could be lost, so the destructive flag is left unexplained rather than contradicted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its partial-update rule, then prerequisites, then return value, then the sibling handoff — a sensible ordering. It is dense (five clauses in one paragraph) but no sentence is redundant.

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 exists, and the description compensates by naming the return value; it also covers ID provenance and the completion-instead-of-delete path. What it omits is the destructive side implied by annotations — whether overwriting title/due/status can lose prior values or trigger downstream effects on open-world To Do data.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by stating the 'at least one editable field required' constraint and the '=' syntax for status completion, neither of which is in the schema. Enum values for status/importance are already fully documented in the schema, so nothing further is needed there.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change supplied fields on an existing To Do task') and immediately encodes the partial-update semantics that distinguish it from m365_tasks_create. An agent can pick this over its siblings without opening any 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 explicit alternatives and conditions: 'Set status=completed to complete it instead of deleting it' routes away from m365_tasks_delete, and 'use m365_tasks_create for a new task' routes away from create. It also says where listId and taskId come from (m365_tasks_lists, m365_tasks_list), removing the main discovery question.

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