Plan one task for Today

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'exactly' and 'optionally at an explicit ISO timestamp,' offering some behavioral context. However, it does not clarify whether existing items in Today are replaced or how the timestamp affects placement, leaving room for ambiguity beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and key option without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for basic use, but it omits edge cases such as whether the task must exist, whether the plan is overwritten, or what the response contains. Given the annotations and sibling context, it is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to both parameters: taskId is the task to place, and startAt is an explicit ISO timestamp. However, it does not specify behavior when startAt is omitted or validate timestamp format, leaving some gaps.

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 uses a specific verb 'Place' with a clear resource 'in Today' and explicitly mentions the supplied task ID and optional timestamp. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_task or complete_task, which focus on execution or completion rather than planning.

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 implies usage (to place a task in Today's plan) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling tool names provide context, but no direct guidance is given, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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