update-planner-task-details

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

The description discloses the essential ETag requirement and checklist format, adding value beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true). It does not contradict annotations, and the concurrency control detail is a key behavioral trait.

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. Every sentence provides essential information, and the critical tip is front-loaded with 'CRITICAL'. No waste.

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?

While the description covers key aspects (ETag, checklist), it omits information about the response structure or possible errors (e.g., ETag mismatch). Since there is no output schema, describing the return format 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 83% schema coverage, the description adds useful semantics: clarifies the If-Match parameter, checklist GUID format, and the correct usage of plannerTaskId (not as id). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('plannerTaskDetails object'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update-planner-task' which updates a different object.

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 prerequisite (If-Match header from get-planner-task-details) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-planner-task. The context is clear but lacks when/when-not logic.

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