plan_today

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that planning does not set a due date and that the task is returned, but it omits safety profile (idempotency), error behavior for a missing or nonexistent id, and permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and free of waste: the toggle semantics come first, followed by the return value. Nothing redundant against the name or title.

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?

With only 2 parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core contract including the return value. Missing error-handling and permission context keeps it just short of complete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that planning is decoupled from due dates and framing planned as a toggle between addition and removal from the Today view. The 'id' parameter is left to the schema.

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 and resource: toggling a task's membership in the Today view via planned=true/false, and returns the task. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the generic update_task sibling by naming the specific 'planned' semantics, though no sibling is named directly.

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 implies when to use each direction (plan vs unplan) through the planned flag, but gives no guidance on alternatives such as update_task or add_task, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. A capable agent can infer usage, but the routing information is left implicit.

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