update-planner-task

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds significant behavioral context: it warns about the 412 Precondition Failed error without the ETag and explains priority values. This helps the agent understand preconditions and value semantics.

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, with a clear purpose statement followed by a key tip and a mapping list. It front-loads the core action and prioritizes critical information. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers prerequisites and priority values but does not explain the response (e.g., whether it returns the updated object or just success). Given the tool's complexity (nested schema, no output schema), this omission reduces completeness for an agent to interpret the outcome.

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 high (80%), but the description adds value by providing a simplified priority mapping (0=Urgent, etc.) not in the schema. It also highlights the critical If-Match parameter. These additions compensate for the schema's high coverage.

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 'Update the properties of plannerTask object,' specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-planner-task-details' or 'create-planner-task', which could lead to 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 a critical tip about requiring the If-Match header and mentions getting the ETag from a specific sibling tool. It implies usage context but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.

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