Store a plan template

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

Annotations already indicate mutation, but the description adds key behavioral context: 'same task_description overwrites the exact key' and 'Auth: tool policy gate'. This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies the overwrite side effect, though the auth note is somewhat vague.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral/auth note. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With two fully documented parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies all necessary extra context: when to use, when not to use, overwrite semantics, and auth awareness. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the role of task_description as the lookup key but does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond 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 verb (store), the resource (structured plan template), and the keying mechanism (by task_description) for later semantic reuse. This differentiates it from siblings like plan_cache_get, plan_cache_delete, and memory_write.

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 explicitly says 'Use after you have a working plan' and 'Do not use for episodic facts (memory_write)', naming the alternative tool and giving an exclusion condition. This leaves no ambiguity about when the tool should be selected.

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