Create a task in a specified Microsoft To Do list with optional due date, reminder, notes, importance, categories, and checklist sub-steps.
Create a task in a To Do list. Dates: YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM (local time). checklist adds sub-steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| list_ref | Yes | ||
| reminder | No | ||
| checklist | No | ||
| categories | No | ||
| importance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't cover: accepted date formats and local-time interpretation, plus the fact that checklist values become sub-steps. It omits what the call returns and whether a list_ref must already exist.
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?
Front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then two compact clarifications, with zero filler. The telegraphic second sentence ('checklist adds sub-steps.') is terse to the point of mild ambiguity but still earns its space.
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 9-parameter creation tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description addresses only the date and checklist concerns. The required list_ref is undefined and six optional parameters have no stated meaning, which is not enough for an agent to call this confidently.
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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies formats for the date-like fields (due/start) and the semantics of checklist, but leaves list_ref (the ambiguous required one—name or id?), notes, reminder, categories and importance entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a task in a To Do list'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, the sibling set contains planner_create_task, a near-identical operation on a different surface, and the description does nothing to distinguish the two.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus planner_create_task or todo_create_list, and no mention of auth or the prerequisite of knowing a valid list reference. The only hinted rule is date formatting, which is a parameter convention rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.