Plan Source Availability Patch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'without querying source systems,' indicating no network calls, but fails to describe side effects, permissions, state changes, or output format. Critical traits are missing.

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 single-sentence description is very concise, but arguably too terse. It conveys the core function without elaboration, missing an opportunity to structure behavior, parameters, or context. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of completeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or effects on system state. Sibling tool names suggest a planning context, but that is not explained.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are minimal ('matrix input.' and 'strict_publish_gate input.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, leaving parameters under-explained, especially for the complex nested 'matrix' object.

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 'Plan source availability corrections without querying source systems,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose (correcting availability) and a key constraint (no source queries). This distinguishes it from siblings that might query sources, but 'corrections' is vague and could be more specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for corrections without source queries, but lacks comparisons to similar tools like dl_build_dashboard_source_availability_matrix or dl_validate_source_availability_consumers.

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