zerodb_plan_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses persistence and the return of an artifact ID, but does not mention error handling, overwrite behavior, or authorization needs. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences efficiently state purpose and return value, with no redundant content. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action, and the second adds actionable integration context.

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 create tool with a simple four-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, persistence, and the returned artifact ID. It does not specify failure modes or exact response format, but this is sufficient for the complexity level.

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 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds no parameter-specific insight beyond echoing the artifact type enum, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Create'), the object ('a persistent plan, PRD, or task artifact'), and the location ('in ZeroDB'). It also mentions integration with sibling tools (plan_get/update/history), differentiating it from those read/update tools.

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 description provides clear context: it is for creating persistent artifacts that can be referenced later. It implies a workflow of creating then using the ID with plan_get/update/history. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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