planner_create_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write-and-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no mention of required permissions, what the tool returns, whether creation is idempotent, or side effects like notifications to assignees. For an 11-parameter mutation tool, this leaves real gaps.

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 short and front-loads the core action ('Create a Planner task') before listing format hints. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded. It is efficient, if a little telegraphic in the trailing format notes.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description should document more of the input surface and the return behavior. It covers only assignee/label/date formats and omits priority/progress enums, checklist structure, bucket_ref, and what a successful creation yields, which is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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, but it only clarifies three parameters: assignees (me / object ID / email), labels (names defined on the plan), and date format (YYYY-MM-DD local). Eight parameters — plan_ref, bucket_ref, priority, progress, checklist, description, title, start — are undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation at best.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Planner task'. This distinguishes it from planner_update_task and planner_delete_task by action, and from todo_create_task by resource (Planner vs To Do). It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the verb+noun makes the operation clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus todo_create_task, or when a task belongs in a plan/bucket versus the To Do list. No prerequisites are stated (e.g., that plan_ref must resolve to an existing plan, or that a bucket must exist first). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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