Create one or more Microsoft To Do tasks due today, placing them in Planned and suggesting them for My Day. Add multiple tasks at once by title, with optional list, reminder, and importance.
快捷新增“今天的任务”：截止日期设为今天，会出现在“计划内”，并作为“我的一天”的建议。可一次添加多个。（Graph API 无法直接加入“我的一天”列表）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | 列表名或列表 id，默认是“任务”列表 | |
| titles | Yes | 一个或多个任务标题 | |
| reminder | No | 提醒时间：'YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm' 或 'HH:mm'（今天） | |
| important | No | 是否标记为重要（星标） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare write (readOnly=false), openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: due date is forced to today, tasks land in '计划内' and surface as '我的一天' suggestions, and it discloses the Graph API limitation that prevents direct '我的一天' insertion.
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?
Two compact clauses plus one parenthetical caveat, front-loaded with the core effect. No redundant or filler sentences; every clause carries information.
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?
For a mutation tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema descriptions, the description covers the key behavioral twist (why it exists rather than relying on Graph API). No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; only finer points like the default list behavior are left to the schema.
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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema and the description adds no further syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies; '可一次添加多个' merely restates the titles array contract.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('快捷新增今天的任务') and precisely scopes it as due today, appearing in '计划内' and suggested for '我的一天'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling add_task, which has no 'today' semantics.
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 gives clear context for when to use it (fast-adding tasks meant for today, batch-capable), but never explicitly names add_task as the alternative for non-today tasks or states exclusions. Context is clear, routing is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.