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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: no git commit/push needed, filePath is relative to the plans root with leading plans/ stripped, filenames under workflow_plans/ are coerced to *.plan.md and stored as WORKFLOW_EXECUTION_PLAN, and the response fields are listed. This is rich disclosure of non-obvious mutation behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence adds operational detail (path semantics, coercion, response fields, blocking role). It is dense but every sentence earns its place; slightly long but justified.

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 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, path semantics, storage/coercion behavior, response fields, and workflow role. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains filePath thoroughly (relative to the plans root, leading plans/ stripped, filename coercion rules), though the content parameter is only implied as the file body. Strong compensation for one of two params.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create or update a file under the mapped plans root) with clear scope, and the read counterpart get-plans-support-file is easily distinguished. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete primary use case (upload workflow execution plans after the Plan phase) and context that it is a blocking step before Execute for cloud agents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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