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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a task is created and reveals nothing about required permissions, side effects, idempotency, validation behavior, or what happens on failure. The mutation implied by 'create' is the only behavioral signal.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence adds a useful format detail for assignments. The only weakness is that the brevity comes at the cost of leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to obtain plan_id and bucket_id (e.g., via list_my_planner_plans or list_buckets), what format due_datetime expects, or the valid range for percent_complete — all critical for a correct first call.

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%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It adds genuine value only for 'assignments' by specifying 'comma-separated user IDs to assign.' The other five parameters (plan_id, bucket_id, title, due_datetime, percent_complete) receive no explanation — notably the due_datetime format and percent_complete range are left ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Create a planner task' — which clearly identifies the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_planner_plan and create_planner_bucket by the resource type, though the description itself doesn't explicitly call out those boundaries.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_todo_task, create_planner_plan, or update_planner_task. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, so the agent must infer appropriate usage entirely from the tool name.

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