create_planner_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a persistent write with immediate effect, explains default plan/bucket resolution, and specifies the due_on format. It doesn't cover permission requirements or failure behavior, but the core side effect is transparent and well communicated.

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 file:///home/username/Projects/sd-gen-benchmark/tmp_files/http:--aiclash.com-.htmlcompact and front-loaded: one sentence states purpose and side effect, followed by a tight bullet list of arguments. There is no filler, and each line adds concrete guidance.

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?

All five parameters are covered with defaults and formats, the write side effect is disclosed, and the description references list_planner_plans for discovery. Since an output schema is present, return details are not needed. Minor gaps remain around invalid plan/bucket behavior and auth prerequisites, but the overall picture is solid.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: title's required, action-oriented nature; notes as task body; plan and bucket as name-or-ID with default resolution; and due_on date format. Each parameter gains meaning well beyond the bare schema definition.

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 'Create a task in Microsoft Planner' with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'This is a real write: the task exists the moment this returns' also helps distinguish it from read-only or list-like sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—creating a Planner task—and even points to list_planner_plans for discovering existing plans. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_planner_bucket or complete_planner_task, but the task-creation use case is well delineated.

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