planner_update_task

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: only supplied fields change, empty strings clear due/start, bucket_ref moves within the same plan, labels replace rather than append, check_items tick existing items, and progress='completed' completes the task. It does not cover auth requirements, side effects like notifications, or return shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 with the core operation and partial-update contract, then uses short sentences for field-specific behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers key field semantics but leaves several parameters and the expected response unaddressed. It is adequate for the most important behaviors but not complete enough to eliminate ambiguity across the full parameter set.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description must carry the full explanatory burden. It explains due, start, bucket_ref, labels, check_items, and progress well, but leaves title, description, priority, task_id, add_assignees, remove_assignees, and add_checklist unexplained. The distinction between check_items and add_checklist is especially important and is not addressed.

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 and resource: 'Update a Planner task.' That cleanly separates it from create, delete, and get siblings without ambiguity. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or scoping when this should be chosen over them, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied by 'Update a Planner task' and 'Only supplied fields change,' which tells the agent this is a partial-update operation on an existing task. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as task existence, and no routing to alternatives like planner_create_task or planner_get_task.

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