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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description usefully narrows that destructiveness by stating 'Only what is sent changes; everything else in the plan (notes, progress, contacts) stays as it is'. It also discloses the upsert behavior. Auth requirements and concurrency behavior are unstated, so not a 5.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what gets saved, the create-if-none condition, and the partial-merge guarantee. The most safety-relevant fact (only sent items change) is front-loaded alongside the operation.

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-param, no-required-field, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers upsert behavior and partial-merge semantics well. It does not address what happens if a program id appears in both keep and setAside, nor any authorization scope.

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 100%, so keep/setAside/answers/planId are already documented in the schema. The description names the same concepts (answers, programs to keep, set aside) but adds no field syntax, constraints, or conflict resolution beyond the schema baseline.

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 (Saves/updates) and resource (the founder's own Programscape plan) plus the sub-operations: new or changed answers, programs to keep, programs to set aside. This distinguishes it from save_plan_draft (drafting) and my_plan (reading), both visible siblings.

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 clear operating context: use it to save answers and program choices, and it will create the first plan if none exists (upsert). It does not explicitly name when to prefer save_plan_draft or my_plan instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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