plan_drop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says 'remove,' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether removal is irreversible, what happens to the plan's associated data, or any permission/error 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the parenthetical rationale is slightly vague rather than informative.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter mutation tool, and the output schema exists to cover return values. Still, with no annotations and no parameter explanation, the definition leaves an agent without guidance on plan_id semantics or how this differs from plan_done.

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?

The single required parameter plan_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains how to obtain a valid plan ID. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb and resource: removing a plan. It adds a rationale ('no longer makes sense'), but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as plan_done or plan_add, so an agent must infer the difference from names alone.

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 phrase 'no longer makes sense (situation changed)' implies when to use this tool, providing basic context. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name plan_done or any alternative for handling obsolete plans.

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