Set or update a Microsoft Planner task's description in plannerTaskDetails, with a confirmation code required when mentioning people who haven't signed up.
Set the task's description (on plannerTaskDetails). Involving people who haven't signed up needs the user's confirmation (see confirm_code).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| description | 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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals a confirmation flow for involving non-signed-up people via confirm_code, but does not say whether it overwrites or appends, required permissions, or what happens to existing content.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding a caveat. It is efficient, though the parenthetical reference to confirm_code is slightly terse.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, the description is too thin. It omits overwrite behavior, permissions, and return semantics needed for confident invocation.
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 should compensate. It explains that confirm_code relates to confirmation for involving people, but leaves task_id completely undocumented and does not explain the format or how confirm_code is obtained.
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: setting the task's description on plannerTaskDetails. It is distinguishable from planner_update_task in that it targets only the description field, though it does not explicitly acknowledge that sibling.
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 is implied by the narrow purpose, and the description hints that confirm_code is needed when involving unsigned-up people. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus planner_update_task or how to obtain the confirmation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.