create-planner-bucket

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context of its own — it doesn't clarify the mutating effect, non-idempotency, or how creation interacts with the confirm gate documented in the schema. It neither contradicts the annotations nor supplements them with any disclosure.

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 with no wasted words, satisfying conciseness and front-loading. However, the brevity simply omits content rather than compressing useful information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently comprehensive.

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?

This is a destructive, complex create operation with a deeply nested body (tasks, assignments, checklist, dueDateTime) and no output schema, yet the description is one sentence. It omits the relationship to a plan, the confirmation requirement, and any guidance on constructing the body, leaving an agent under-equipped for a mutation with real side effects.

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 75%, and the schema itself documents parameters well (name, planId, orderHint). But the description contributes zero parameter information and doesn't even note that planId is needed to place the bucket in a plan. What little the description adds is a restatement of the body object present in the schema, providing no value beyond it.

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 names a specific action (create) and resource (plannerBucket object), so the verb+resource is present and clear. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does nothing to distinguish create-planner-bucket from close siblings like create-planner-task, update-planner-bucket, or list-plan-buckets. It is clear but barely more informative than the title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of when not to use it, and no prerequisites stated. The schema reveals that planId is required to associate the bucket with a plan, but the description never communicates this needed context, so an agent gets no help choosing or preparing a valid call.

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