Assign a Microsoft Planner task to one or more users by AAD ID, adding them to existing assignees and requiring a confirmation code when involving people who haven't signed up.
Assign a task to one or more users (AAD user ids). Adds to existing assignees. Involving people who haven't signed up needs the user's confirmation (see confirm_code).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| assignee_ids | Yes | ||
| confirm_code | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses the additive semantics and the confirmation requirement for unregistered assignees. However, it leaves out permission requirements, what happens on invalid AAD ids or duplicate assignees, and whether the call fails atomically — significant gaps 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the confirmation caveat following. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical '(see confirm_code)' is cryptic enough to border on underspecification.
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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the confirmation caveat but omits the return value (e.g., updated assignee list), failure modes, and the mechanics of the confirmation round-trip.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for assignee_ids (AAD user ids) and hints that confirm_code is the confirmation token, but task_id is never explained and the confirm_code workflow (how/when the code is obtained) remains opaque.
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 (assign a task to users) and adds the crucial qualifier that this is additive to existing assignees, which implicitly distinguishes it from planner_unassign_task. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with, so an agent must infer the comparison.
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?
Gives one conditional rule (involving unregistered people needs user confirmation), which is useful routing guidance, but never states when to pick this over planner_update_task or planner_unassign_task, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing task id from planner_get_task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.