planner_add_checklist_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the item is persisted on the task details object and that an unconfirmed-participant scenario triggers a confirmation gate – context an agent would not otherwise know. It omits what happens with duplicate item names, required permissions/scopes, and whether the task details object is overwritten.

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, front-loaded with the action and its storage target. The second sentence is slightly ambiguous but not wasteful.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs more: expected return value, permission requirements, and idempotency/duplicate behavior are all missing. The storage-location and confirmation notes help, but the picture is still partial for a write operation.

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 ties confirm_code to a confirmation flow, which adds meaning beyond the bare string type, but explains neither where that code comes from nor why a checklist item would involve other people – the linkage is confusing. title and task_id remain undocumented but are largely self-evident.

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 ('Add a checklist item to a Planner task') and notes where the data lives ('stored on task details'), which distinguishes it from the todo_add_checklist_item sibling by platform. It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the Planner-vs-To Do boundary is evident from the resource name.

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?

Provides one real usage condition: involving people who haven't signed up requires user confirmation via confirm_code. It never states when to prefer this over todo_add_checklist_item or what prerequisites (task must exist, plan membership) apply.

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