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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: billable AI usage (cost implication), synchronous execution, task-support prohibition, three mutation modes, partial-failure policy ('completed_items_not_rolled_back'), deterministic idempotency retry derivation, and output-handling constraints. All of this is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and meaningfully enriches them.

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 front-loaded with the deprecation note and uses compact label-value metadata for operational traits. However, the opening sentence duplicates the title, and the closing response-style guidance ('Use assistantSummary first...', 'Never display raw JSON...', 'Prefer concise, human language...') runs on for several sentences of generic MCP behavior rather than tool-specific content. Structured but bloated.

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 17-parameter, nested, deprecated mutation tool, the description thoroughly covers operational aspects (billing, execution mode, failure policy, idempotency, output handling) and the output schema covers return structure. But it omits the core domain semantics: what a production plan is, what the tool produces, and how to populate the required business arguments. The agent is left guessing at input semantics from bare property names.

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 0% across 17 parameters, including four required ones (brand, campaignName, format, brief), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. The only parameter mentioned, idempotencyKey, is not even present in the input schema. Given the very low coverage, the description was expected to compensate but essentially ignores 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 states a clear verb+resource ('create production plan') and explicitly flags itself as a deprecated alias for create_production_plan, which differentiates it from that sibling. However, it never explains what a production plan actually is, what creating one entails, or how it differs from other creation tools like leanriq_build_ad or create_creative_brief. The first sentence merely restates the title, leaving the core purpose conceptually vague.

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 deprecation statement is an explicit when-not-to-use signal pointing to create_production_plan as the preferred alternative. 'Task support: forbidden' and the mutation modes ('validate_only, preview_only, execute') give clear invocation constraints. Missing is positive scenario guidance for when a production plan is the right artifact to create, so it stops short of a 5.

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