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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds a genuinely useful state fact — the created plan is inactive — but says nothing about permission requirements, whether the parent plan's entries are copied when parentPlanId is given, or what happens on name collision. For a creation tool the copy-semantics gap is the notable omission.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence is a single high-value state constraint. No filler and nothing 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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and only hint-level annotations, the basics are covered, but an agent still cannot tell whether entries are required, what identifier is returned to use with stackwell_activate_plan, or how parentPlanId inheritance works. Adequate but with real gaps for a creation workflow entry point.

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 must compensate, and it does partially: it explains that entries are schedule entries attached to the new plan and that parentPlanId means "new version of an existing plan." It adds no meaning for name or reason, nor for how entries relate to an existing parent plan's schedule.

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 and resource ("Create a new intake plan") plus the key scope detail that it may be a new version of an existing plan with schedule entries. It does not name a sibling, but the contrast with stackwell_activate_plan is implied by "The new plan is not activated."

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?

Usage is only implied: the "not activated" note hints that activation is a separate step (stackwell_activate_plan), and "optionally as a new version" hints at when to pass parentPlanId. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus stackwell_add_schedule_entry or stackwell_update_schedule_entry for an existing plan.

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