ClockNext: update plan

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: complete replacement, omitted fields dropped, changes apply only going forward, and existing customers keep their terms. This is valuable context that annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) do not convey.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second notes side effects, the third gives a clear workflow. No fluff or duplication of schema content.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: full rewrite semantics, forward-looking effect, and prerequisite workflow. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% and property descriptions are detailed, so baseline is 3. The description adds parameter-level meaning by emphasizing that the payload must be a complete definition (same shape as create) and that omitted fields are dropped, which affects how callers should construct the object.

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 ('Replace'), names the resource ('a plan by id'), and clarifies the semantics ('a full rewrite, not a patch; omitted fields are dropped'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clocknext_create_plan and clocknext_archive_plan.

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 explicit operational guidance: 'Read it first with clocknext_get_plan, edit, then send the whole thing back.' It implies a full overwrite use case and discourages partial edits, though it does not enumerate alternatives or state 'when not to use' explicitly.

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