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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says the tool does not run the macro and lists what the plan will contain, which is useful behavioral context. It could go further by explaining the format of route/blockers or whether any state is inspected, but the core non-execution behavior is clear.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of deliverables. Every phrase earns its place, and the key distinction ('without running it') appears early.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a solid high-level overview but leaves gaps. It never explains what 'route' or 'blockers' mean concretely, and it does not mention how active_sheet factors into planning. An agent can select the tool confidently, but may be underprepared for interpreting its response.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the active_sheet parameter at all, nor does it clarify how entrypoint or active_sheet affect the route, blockers, or instruction budget. The schema documents entrypoint's 'Module.Procedure' format, but the description contributes no additional parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Plan a macro run') and clearly distinguishes itself from execution-oriented siblings like sheet_apply by emphasizing 'without running it.' It also names concrete deliverables: route, native engine support, blockers, and instruction budget.

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 context that this is a planning step before execution, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it never contrasts itself with macro_list, macro_read_source, or sheet_apply, so routing an agent to the right sibling is left partly to inference.

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