art.production.plan

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives only the basic action 'create'. It does not disclose whether the plan is executable, whether it overwrites existing plans, or any permissions or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single sentence with no waste, and the parenthetical adds a useful operational note. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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?

With 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain what a 'production plan' entails, what the output will be, or how to handle potential failures. An agent lacks critical context for successful invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all 9 parameters are individually documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning or relationships between parameters, which meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states it creates a production plan for an art asset, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'plan' rather than execution or status, though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(inspect before executing)' implies a workflow sequence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like art.production.create or art.production.start. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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