Add a subtask to any Microsoft To Do task using the list name or ID and task ID, with optional checked status. Organize tasks into actionable checklist items.
Add a step (subtask) to a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | Yes | List display name (case-insensitive) or list id | |
| text | Yes | ||
| checked | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | Task id from list_tasks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation behavior is disclosed. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—it does not mention side effects like appending to an existing task, what happens if the list or task is missing, or any error conditions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to enrich 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 a single, concise sentence with the core verb and resource front-loaded. There is zero fluff, and every word contributes to the purpose statement.
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 mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema. The description does not mention prerequisites, expected parameter values, or the relationship between the parameters (e.g., that the step's text is required, that checked defaults to false). An agent would need to inspect the schema for the two documented parameters and guess on the others, which is insufficient for reliable 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 50% (list and task_id have descriptions; text and checked do not). The description does not clarify any parameter, including the purpose of 'text' or the meaning of 'checked'. It adds no value beyond the schema's partial coverage and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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 verb 'add' and resource 'step (subtask)' and ties it to a task, making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_task or update_step, relying on the word 'subtask' to imply the difference. This is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_task or update_step. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the task must exist) or conditions that would make this the right choice. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.