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

Annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the last step and next action remain intact, but it does not explain what is destroyed or what abandon/defer do to the rest of the plan.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core action/state information front-loaded. There is no filler.

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?

The annotation set covers the safety profile and the tool has only three parameters, so the definition is minimally viable. However, for a destructive plan-state mutation with no output schema, the description should clarify the consequences of each action and what is preserved or lost.

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 coverage is only 33%, with only the session parameter described. The description restates the action enum values but adds no meaning for plan_id and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 names specific actions (resume, abandon, defer) and the resource (a plan), so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling, but there is no obvious sibling plan-mutation tool to confuse it with.

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 three actions imply that the tool is used for plan state transitions, but the description gives no conditions for choosing resume vs. abandon vs. defer, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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