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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: atomic saves, immutable revisions, plan_changed history, no automatic scheduling, and the tickets:write permission requirement. It also clarifies that clearing is an explicit supported action, which is valuable context for a mutating tool.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The primary action, key preconditions, effects, and exclusions are front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct value.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation requirements, retry behavior, side effects, authorization, and non-behavior. No critical gap remains for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains expected_version (current version required), request_id (reuse on retries), and the conceptual distinction between dates/duration and points. It does not elaborate on all nested plan fields, but their names and schemas are largely self-explanatory.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('replace or clear') and a clear resource ('ticket plan'), making the operation unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling read/history tools like get_ticket_delivery_plan and list_ticket_delivery_plan_history.

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?

The description gives clear preconditions and retry guidance: pass current expected_version and reuse request_id on retries. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('no automatic scheduling/execution'), but it does not explicitly name an alternative for scheduling.

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