update-planner-task

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the requirement for an If-Match header and the meaning of priority values. Annotations already flag destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. However, it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, or what happens to unspecified fields, which is a gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a tip. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides critical usage details. No extraneous information is present.

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?

Given the complexity (nested objects, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers a key prerequisite (ETag) and priority values, but is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the behavior of partial updates, or how to choose this tool over sibling planner tools. Additional details about the response or update semantics would improve completeness.

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?

With schema description coverage at 83%, most parameters are already described. The description adds value by explaining the If-Match header requirement and priority value mapping, but these are partially covered in the schema for priority. The body parameter lacks additional semantic information that could help agents understand partial update behavior.

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.' This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create-planner-task or get-planner-task, but the purpose is 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 includes a critical tip about the required If-Match header and how to obtain the ETag, which is essential for successful use. It also enumerates the priority value mappings. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a new task or delete one.

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