Update selected fields of an existing Microsoft To Do or Planner task—title, body, status, due date, importance, and reminders—by providing list and task IDs.
Update any subset of a task's fields. status: notStarted|inProgress|completed|waitingOnOthers|deferred.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| list_id | Yes | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| due_date | No | ||
| time_zone | No | UTC | |
| importance | No | ||
| reminder_date | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It usefully indicates partial updates and enumerates status values, but it omits permissions, side effects, whether omitted fields remain unchanged, error behavior, and return characteristics.
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 front-loaded and has no wasted wording. However, for a nine-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, it is arguably too terse to be fully appropriately sized.
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?
The description is incomplete for a complex mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. It covers partial updating and status values, but leaves most parameter semantics and key behavioral details unaddressed.
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 for nine undocumented parameters. It only adds meaning for the status parameter by listing allowed values; list_id, task_id, body, title, due_date, time_zone, importance, and reminder_date remain unexplained by both schema and description.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: updating a task's fields. It also clarifies that the tool supports partial updates via 'any subset of a task's fields' and lists valid status values. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like todo_complete_task, which is why it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as todo_complete_task or planner_update_task. It implies partial updates and status changes but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.