ClockNext: create plan

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds that this creates a 'real, sellable plan' and warns to verify pricing, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the flags. No contradiction.

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 dense but each sentence conveys distinct information: component types, billing modes, FREE special case, dashboard preference, and pricing warning. Structure is logical, though slightly long.

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?

Covers prerequisites, special-case rules, and usage guidance effectively. It does not discuss return values or error behavior, but given no output schema and rich parameter descriptions, it is adequately complete for a creation tool.

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 detailed param descriptions. The description mostly restates component and billingMode rules (WALLET, FLAT, ADVANCE/ARREAR, FREE constraint) that are already in the schema, adding little new semantic value.

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 opens with 'Create a billing plan' and clearly elaborates that a plan bundles entitlement components (WALLET, FLAT, CREDIT, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling create tools like clocknext_create_credit/outcome/unit. It also positions itself as a fallback to the dashboard builder, clarifying its unique role.

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?

Explicitly states to prefer the dashboard plan builder and use this tool as a fallback. It also instructs users to create referenced components first (clocknext_create_credit / _outcome / _unit) and list them to get IDs, which is concrete when-to-use guidance.

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