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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: restoration happens only via the web interface (not through MCP tools), the call is non-idempotent in concrete terms ('Calling it twice saves two versions'), the plan itself is unchanged despite write access, and write permission is required. That directly complements readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false rather than merely restating them.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then a permission note. Every sentence carries non-obvious information; nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive save tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: side effects, non-idempotency, restore path, and permissions are all covered. Minor gaps remain around what the call returns and whether there is a limit on stored versions.

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 100%: the schema already documents the version name format with an example and explains that projectId comes from planitude_list_projects. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Saves a full snapshot of the plan as a named version in the project history.' An agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling planitude_save_baseline, which an agent could easily confuse with a version snapshot.

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 concrete trigger ('for example before a large change') and clarifies that it does not alter the plan, which helps an agent decide whether to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, notably save_baseline vs. save_version, so the choice between those two remains ambiguous.

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