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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and safety; it does state that the tool does not execute and produces a read-only plan, which are important traits. It fails to clarify the persistence/authorization behavior, the role of jobId, or the meaning of 'One Authorize and run grants,' leaving the behavioral story incomplete.

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 one dense sentence and front-loads the core verb and resource, with the plan-sheet field list packing useful information into a small space. The awkward 'One Authorize and run grants' phrase costs some clarity, but there is no fluff or repetition.

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 15-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the central workflow but omits guidance for important optional inputs like planSheet, jobId, workspaceId, and deliverables. It is minimally serviceable for a first call with just prompt, but an agent would be under-equipped to handle edit/persist and continuation flows.

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 already high (73%), so the schema documents most parameters; the description adds the plan-sheet breakdown including access, cost/entitlement, and blockers beyond the schema. It neither compensates for the few undocumented fields such as fixture, tier, or metadata, nor describes how prompt and planSheet interact with one another.

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 names a concrete action — parsing a review prompt into an editable plan sheet — and enumerates the plan sections, so an agent can tell this is a planning step, not an execution tool. The phrase 'without executing' further separates it from execution siblings like run_harness_job, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

It communicates the intended use case: turn a review request into an editable plan before running anything, and the final phrase points to an authorize/run handoff. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over run_harness_job/resume_harness_job or when not to use it, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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