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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint; the description adds useful context beyond that – storage type (WORKFLOW_EXECUTION_PLAN), filename coercion, canonical path normalization, and the returned fields. It could more explicitly note the overwrite/destructive behavior on existing files, which is only implied by 'update'.

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-loaded with the core action, then primary use, normalization rules, response shape, and workflow gating. Information-dense and mostly earning its place, though the return-fields sentence is a slight tack-on given no output schema.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, where files land, normalization behavior, and the returned keys, plus auth params are documented in the schema. It falls just short of explicitly stating overwrite/destructive semantics for an upsert.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description meaningfully compensates: it explains that filePath is relative to the plans mapped root, that a leading 'plans/' is stripped, and that filenames under workflow_plans/ are coerced to *.plan.md. This adds real semantics beyond the schema, though the required 'content' parameter remains undocumented.

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/update a file under the mapped plans root by relative path. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get-plans-support-file by specifying it writes rather than reads, and names the canonical workflow_plans location.

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 clear usage context ('Primary use: upload workflow execution plans... after the Plan phase' and 'Blocking step before Execute for cloud agents'). It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the workflow-phase framing is quite actionable.

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