art.detail.plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states that a plan is created, but it does not clarify whether this is a persistent write, a pure planning artifact, requires prior asset registration, has side effects, or returns a plan object. For a creation-style tool, that is a significant transparency gap.

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?

One clean sentence that fronts the verb and object, names all meaningful input categories, and contains no redundant wording. Good compression without losing needed semantics.

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?

For a relatively simple 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate, but it does not explain what a 'detail art plan' is used for or how the result integrates with sibling tools. With no output schema and no annotations, mentioning the relation to art.detail.execute or the expected output shape would make the tool materially easier to use 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%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description only summarizes them with rendering ('subject', 'materials', 'resolution' for width/height, and 'detail profile' for profile), which adds no new information 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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a detail art plan for an asset'), and enumerates the defining inputs (subject, resolution, materials, detail profile). This distinguishes it from related planning tools like art.production.plan and art.pipeline.plan by clearly focusing on the 'detail' planning scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternative ones. Although the name suggests it complements execution-oriented siblings like art.detail.execute, no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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