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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the confirmation requirement. For a mutation tool, details about side effects, permissions, or reversibility are missing, and the description adds minimal value over 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?

The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of critical information. It fails to cover essential aspects like parameter semantics or usage context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and limited annotations, the description is very incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of most parameters, the effects of the change, or what happens upon success or failure, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only mentions the 'confirm' parameter, ignoring communityObjectId, priceId, discountCode, and communityReferralCode. This leaves the agent without necessary context for correct invocation.

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 clearly states 'Change a community plan' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'change_plan_tier', which likely has a similar purpose, causing potential confusion for the agent.

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 only mentions that confirm must be set to 'CHANGE_PLAN', providing a single usage requirement. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_plan or change_plan_tier, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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