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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: the precondition that the plan must be unconfirmed, the partial-send semantics, and the post-write behavior that Askli re-checks and may report a different saved result.

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 and fields; no filler. Minor deduction for the slightly informal phrasing of the closing sentence about Askli re-checking the plan.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key precondition, the field scope, and the return behavior (a re-check with any differences reported). Error and permission cases are not addressed, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by naming the four updatable fields and clarifying that only those fields should be sent, which communicates patch-style partial-update behavior the schema alone implies only loosely.

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 ('Change') plus resource ('plan') and enumerates the four mutable fields, while scoping to 'unconfirmed' plans. That scope clause alone distinguishes it from confirm_plan and get_plan without opening a schema.

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 two concrete usage rules: only change what the user asked for or agreed to, and send only those fields (partial update). The 'unconfirmed plan' precondition is implied as the when-to-use condition, but no sibling is named as an alternative for confirmed plans.

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