plan_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important manual-only scope, but does not mention what happens if called on a non-manual plan, whether completion is reversible, or any side effects—leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 scoped sentences with zero waste, leading with the primary purpose and immediately following with the key condition. Highly efficient.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description gives the essential usage constraint. It could be more complete about error behavior or plan_id semantics, but it covers the core need adequately.

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% for the single plan_id parameter, and the description adds no meaning beyond the self-explanatory name. Per rules, low coverage requires the description to compensate, which it does not.

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 (mark as completed) and resource (a plan), and distinguishes it from plans that complete automatically. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like plan_add or plan_drop, leaving a small gap in routing clarity.

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?

Clearly states when to use (manual-condition plans) and when not to use (server-checked conditions complete automatically). It does not name explicit alternatives, but the exclusion is precise enough to guide correct invocation.

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