update_planner_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the If-Match/etag requirement, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. But it does not mention whether updates are partial, what happens on etag mismatch, or any permission/conflict behavior.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the critical If-Match requirement. No filler or repetition.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, this description is too thin for reliable invocation. It covers the operation and the etag requirement, but leaves field semantics, partial-update behavior, and response expectations unstated.

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. It only explains if_match by noting it should use the etag from the task. The other parameters (title, due_datetime, percent_complete) have no added meaning beyond their names, and due_datetime format or percent_complete range are not clarified.

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: 'Update a planner task.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_planner_task, delete_planner_task, and list_planner_tasks. The If-Match requirement adds useful scope without ambiguity.

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 this is used when an existing planner task must be modified, and the If-Match requirement signals it is not for creation or deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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