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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries substantial behavioral context: explicit consent for saving, default PRIVATE+DRAFT, restrictions on PUBLIC and LEGACY, PUBLISHED completeness requirements, and markdown limitations. It still omits some mutation behavior, such as how omitted fields are handled on edit, whether the operation is an upsert, and concurrency behavior for expectedUpdatedAt.

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 critical authorization gate is front-loaded, and the dense clauses are mostly necessary business rules rather than filler. However, the single paragraph of semicolon-separated constraints is hard to scan and could be structured more clearly for agent use.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core save, publication, visibility, and formatting rules. It remains incomplete for edit-vs-create identification via id, reference handling, concurrency, and expected return behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking the tool correctly.

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% and the nested plan object has many undocumented fields. The description clarifies important enums and defaults for purpose, status, visibility, contentFormat, targetUserId, and sectionTitles, but it does not explain the top-level id or several meaningful fields such as references, importId, derivedFromId, expectedUpdatedAt, purposeReviewConfirmed, and negotiable, so it only partially compensates.

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 on a specific resource: only when the user explicitly requests saving should it add or edit the user's own cooperation plan. It also distinguishes this action from viewing or changing a draft and from pending confirmation, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules: save only on an explicit user request, and do not treat viewing or editing a draft as authorization. It also states prerequisites for new plans (GENERAL or TARGETED with targetUserId; LEGACY cannot be newly sent) and for old drafts or purpose switches (use Agent ADAPT_PURPOSE and preview confirmation).

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