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

With no annotations available, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses email side effects, link behavior, idempotency, the need for creator_key, and the return of a new creator_key for locking the new time—all beyond a basic purpose statement.

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 dense yet every sentence adds operational value—purpose, effects, authorization, return value, and idempotency. It is front-loaded and avoids filler despite covering a complex tool.

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 email side effects and no output schema, the description covers return values, side effects, and idempotency well. It does not address edge cases like missing finished plans or absent locked weekdays, but the core usage is complete enough.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions, and the description only partially compensates: creator_key is explained as required and returned for locking, but id is only implicitly the identifier of the finished plan. It is inferable but not explicitly documented.

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 operation: start the group's next plan from a finished one, and details concrete effects (cloning setup, proposing dates, linking old→new, emailing). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create_plan by framing it as a successor-cloning tool.

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 intended scenario is clear: use when a finished plan exists and you want to carry its setup into the next occurrence, with idempotent behavior if a successor already exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'from a finished one' condition is enough context.

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