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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds concrete detail beyond them: identical retries keep the same revision, and a changed plan requires expectedRevision from a previous read (optimistic concurrency). This is genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations don't convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the definition, idempotency note, and concurrency requirement. Little waste, though the 'set of reply windows, channels, and staffing promises' sentence is definitional padding that could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the approval precondition, idempotency, and concurrency requirement. The main gap is per-parameter documentation, but that is scored separately under parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains expectedRevision well ('from a previous read,' required for changed plans), which is the trickiest parameter, but says nothing about name, summary, catalogId, or status. Only one of five parameters gains meaning beyond the schema, so it partially compensates.

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+resource ('Store or revise a customer plan') and further defines the resource as the aggregate of 'reply windows, channels, and staffing promises,' which implicitly distinguishes it from the component-level save_plan_channel / save_reply_window / save_staffing_promise siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 real preconditions: the plan must be 'explicitly approved,' and a changed plan requires expectedRevision from a prior read. It also notes identical retries are safe. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternative tools (e.g. search vs save), so it stops short of a 5.

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