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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds value by specifying that plans are visible, editable, and removable, and that a token with 'write scope and ourpr. create' is needed. It also clarifies it does not log runs. However, it doesn't elaborate on behavior when plans already exist on the same date or on rate limits, which would further improve transparency.

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 sentences, each carrying essential information: the primary action, the outcome, the authentication requirement, and an explicit exclusion. The description is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids any filler or redundancy.

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 tool that writes up to 14 plans with multiple fields, the description covers the core behavior, token requirement, and non-logging nature. It doesn't mention whether existing plans on the same date are replaced or appended, which could be relevant, but given the output schema is present (per context signals) and the schema already validates dates, the description is largely complete.

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 covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely references the array ('one planned run, or a week of them') and doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. It provides minor context that these are plans rather than logs, but overall the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('write') and resource ('planned run(s)') onto 'days still ahead', which clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling tools like ourpr_list_plans and ourpr_get_run. It also explains the result ('a plan they can see, edit and remove'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool (to put planned runs on the runner's week) and explicitly notes it 'Never logs a run', which implies a separate tool handles logging. It also states the required token scope ('write scope and ourpr. create'), which is a prerequisite. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but no sibling performs a similar write action, so this is sufficient.

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