plan_cache_put

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'for reuse' but does not explain overwrite behavior, persistence, validation of the plan object, or error conditions. This is severely lacking for a storage/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?

The description is extremely short (4 words, 1 sentence), which is concise but at the cost of missing critical context. It is front-loaded with the essential action, but fails to earn its place by omitting necessary details for correct usage.

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 the tool has two required parameters, one a nested object, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, conflict handling, or the relationship to the sibling 'plan_cache_get' tool. The behavioral gaps are significant.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds nothing about the parameters. 'plan' is only implied as a template, and 'task_description' is not mentioned as a key or identifier. The semantic meaning of the parameters is left entirely to the schema structure.

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 uses a clear verb 'store' and resource 'plan template', which aligns with the tool name 'plan_cache_put'. It hints at reuse, distinguishing it from 'plan_cache_get' (retrieval). However, it could be more specific about the type of plan (e.g., task plan) and that it is keyed by task_description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory_write' or 'plan_cache_get'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when to avoid using it. The description is purely declarative.

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