planner_create_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — that assigning users who haven't signed up requires confirmation via confirm_code — which is valuable. But it omits permissions/scopes required, error behavior for invalid plan_id or bucket_id, and whether task creation is idempotent.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action, then a compact parameter glossary. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the schema titles.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tricky inputs but not the surrounding contract: what a successful call returns (task id?), what happens if plan_id or bucket_id is invalid, or how confirm_code is obtained. Adequate to attempt a call, but not complete.

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, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: date format for due_date/start_date, AAD user ids for assignee_ids, and the 0-10 priority scale with named anchors. It leaves bucket_id and plan_id unexplained, but those are largely self-describing names.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a Planner task") that clearly separates it from planner_update_task, planner_delete_task, or the todo_* family. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with planner_assign_task or todo_create_task, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the note about unregistered assignees requiring confirmation gives a conditional workflow hint, but there is no statement of prerequisites (does plan_id need to exist? must a bucket exist before bucket_id?), nor any guidance on when to use this versus planner_assign_task or planner_update_task.

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