create-planner-task

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which already signal this is a mutating/write operation. The description 'Create a new plannerTask' is consistent with these annotations and adds no contradiction, but it also contributes nothing beyond the annotations—no mention of side effects, required context like plan/bucket existence, confirmation behavior, or return values. Given that annotations carry the safety profile, the bare minimum is met, but the description adds no behavioral depth.

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 and is appropriately front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than economically concise—it conveys the bare minimum and could benefit from a qualifying phrase about what the tool actually does with the body payload. It scores a 3 for being adequately short but not adding useful structure.

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 complex creation tool with a deeply nested body schema, yet the description gives no indication of what fields are necessary to create a valid task (e.g., that body is required, whether planId or bucketId is needed). With no output schema and no description-level guidance, an agent would have to infer all requirements from the JSON schema alone. For a write operation of this complexity, the description should do far more to orient the caller.

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 description coverage is 75%, placing it near the high-coverage baseline of 3. The schema itself is extremely rich—the body parameter contains detailed descriptions for priority (with the 0-10 interpretation), dueDateTime (ISO 8601 format), percentComplete, and various read-only flags. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already documents, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not exemplary.

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 states a clear verb+resource combination: 'Create a new plannerTask.' This does identify the action (creating a planner task) and differentiates it from siblings like list-planner-tasks or delete-planner-bucket. However, it's minimal—'plannerTask' is a slightly awkward compound term and the description adds nothing beyond the name itself, offering no detail about what a planner task is or what fields are involved.

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. Siblings include create-todo-task, create-planner-bucket, create-planner-task-message, and update-planner-task, but the description gives no context on how to choose among them. A tool as generic as 'Create a new plannerTask' would benefit from at least a note on prerequisites (e.g., a plan or bucket must exist first).

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