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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true; the description adds scope detail by clarifying that ONLY the plan is replaced while control states (Autopilot, Off/Pause/ask) remain unchanged — real context beyond the annotations. The requirement for a new clientRequestId aligns with the idempotency hint, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 scope constraint and zero filler; every fragment carries information. The telegraphic, semicolon-separated style ("Off/Pause/ask unchanged") is dense and slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, so requirements are modest. Still, for a destructive mutation with a nested `plan` object at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the plan structure and the conflict-checking purpose of expectedPlanRevision/expectedControlUpdatedAt unexplained, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does source expectedPlanRevision and expectedControlUpdatedAt from soclo_agreed_plan_read and specifies clientRequestId is a new UUID, which is genuinely valuable. But it says nothing about the `plan` object (goals, cadence, summary) or that the expected* fields act as optimistic-concurrency tokens, leaving the most complex nested parameter undocumented.

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 the verb+resource ("Replace the saved plan") and scopes it against control state ("Autopilot, Off/Pause/ask unchanged"), which meaningfully distinguishes it from sibling tools like soclo_agreed_plan_save_and_run and soclo_agreed_plan_apply. The wording is terse and jargon-heavy, but an agent can tell what it does.

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?

Provides prerequisite guidance ("planRevision, control.expectedUpdatedAt from soclo_agreed_plan_read") and a fallback ("Unknown: soclo_agreed_plan_intent"), which is useful. However it never explains when to pick this over soclo_agreed_plan_apply or soclo_agreed_plan_save_and_run, leaving the key sibling selection to inference.

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