Plan Changes

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

The description goes beyond annotations by revealing that each step runs with dryRun=true against live state, returning affected paths and predicted actions. This complements the idempotentHint and clarifies the non-destructive nature, adding significant value.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second links to the sibling tool. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description explains the dry-run behavior and what is returned (affected paths, predicted action), which is sufficient given no output schema. However, it does not detail the exact return format, leaving a minor gap for agent completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'dryRun is injected automatically', which is helpful but not about parameter semantics per se.

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 specific verb 'Preview' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a sequence of write operations'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'apply_plan' by mentioning that the latter executes the same steps for real, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states when to use this tool (to preview) and points to the sibling tool 'apply_plan' for execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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