update-planner-task

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds critical behavioral detail: the requirement for an If-Match header and the 412 failure mode if missing, plus how to obtain the ETag. It also lists priority values, though the schema already documents them. This adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 concise: one sentence for the purpose and a critical tip. The tip is front-loaded and every word earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the most critical operational detail (If-Match) and priority semantics. It does not mention that only certain fields are updatable or that read-only fields will be ignored, but the rich schema descriptions mitigate this. Overall, sufficient for correct basic invocation.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why If-Match is required and how to get the ETag from get-planner-task with includeHeaders=true. It also provides a quick priority mapping, even if partially redundant with the schema. This helps an agent understand the parameter's purpose and preconditions.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('plannerTask object'). It distinguishes from siblings like create-planner-task and get-planner-task by implying an existing task is being modified. The short description is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update-planner-task-details, which could overlap. The tip about the If-Match header is valuable but focuses on a precondition rather than selecting the right tool. Usage context is implied but there are no exclusions or comparisons.

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