Mixed quality across 10 tools. All tools have descriptions (10-100+ chars) and basic schemas with typed parameters. However, descriptions are often generic and lack actionable context for LLM selection. Parameter descriptions exist but are minimal (e.g., 'The notebook name' without format/constraint guidance). No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent from visible code. Security patterns (permission gates, audit trails) are not evident. Tool naming is clear and verb-based (list_, read_, create_), but composition could be tighter, several tools operate on the same resources without clear chaining guidance.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify field names, types, and whether results are paginated. Include example responses showing the structure LLMs will receive.
• Enhance parameter descriptions with format constraints. E.g., 'notebook: The OneNote notebook name (string, 1-255 chars, no leading/trailing spaces)' instead of just 'The notebook name'.
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. E.g., 'Returns 404 if notebook not found, try list_sections() to discover available notebooks. Retryable: no.'
• Implement and document permission checks for create_event and any future write tools. Return clear 403 errors with required scope names when authorization fails.
• Add dependency hints to discovery tools. E.g., list_notes description: 'Use this to enumerate notes in a notebook. For a paginated map with sketches, call map_notes() instead.'

Inferred effective spec: 2026-07-28+.

• Relies on Dynamic Client Registration (deprecated) - use Client ID Metadata Documents (CIMD)