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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description goes further: it discloses partial-update semantics ('name only the inputs to change'), the derived-steps rebuild behavior, the refusal path for non-catalog plans, and explicitly rules out scheduling, firing or confirming side effects.

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?

Opens with the mutation and its coupling to steps, then the catalog precondition, then the partial-input rule, then the capability exclusions. Dense but front-loaded and free of filler; the enumerated input list is the only mildly heavy passage.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the mutation model, validation/refusal behavior, and what is intentionally not done, which is most of what an agent needs. It could say more about the result of the rebuild or permission requirements, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the concrete Always On input names (scope, account_template_id, contact_template_id, account_credit_cap, contact_credit_cap, firing_cap) inside the otherwise generic 'inputs' object, plus the partial-name semantics.

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 (Change) and resource (an OUT-OF-THE-BOX plan's inputs, and with them its steps), and immediately distinguishes this from direct step editing, which it says never happens for catalog plans. An agent can tell this apart from set_plan_schedule, fire_plan and update_rule_template without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear condition: the plan must be built from the catalog (managed true, with catalog_key and inputs, per get_plan) and is changed only this way; otherwise it is refused. It also states that only the named inputs change and the rest keep their values. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use for scheduling/firing instead of this tool.

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