update-planner-task-details

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description doesn't contradict that. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the ETag requirement and the GUID-key structure for checklist items. This tells the agent about a precondition and a format detail not present in the schema, enriching the behavioral profile.

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 and efficient. Two sentences plus a focused TIP. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical prerequisite is highlighted in the TIP. No wasted words, and the critical details are presented without padding.

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 complex update operation with nested objects, the description covers the vital ETag requirement and checklist format. It doesn't explain every possible property, but those are in the schema. The absence of an output schema means return format is not needed. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention that the operation affects only details, not the main task object, but the name implies that.

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 parameters are mostly documented. The description adds value by explaining the checklist GUID format and the If-Match/ETag usage, which are not fully covered in the schema. It helps the agent correctly construct the body and headers beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Update the properties of plannerTaskDetails object', which clearly identifies the verb (update), the resource (plannerTaskDetails), and distinguishes it from update-planner-task by specifying 'details'. It lacks an explicit contrast with siblings, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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 provides critical usage guidance: it requires an If-Match header with the ETag from get-planner-task-details and instructs using includeHeaders=true. This indicates a prerequisite step and clarifies when to fetch the ETag first. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the ETag requirement effectively routes the agent to the right predecessor.

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