PlanManager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '批量删除' (batch deletion), indicating a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletions are permanent/reversible, authentication requirements, rate limits, confirmation steps, or what '所有旅行相关计划' (all travel-related plans) entails (e.g., how plans are identified as travel-related). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and context, followed by a structured 'Args:' section for parameters. There's no wasted text, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more detailed given the lack of schema coverage.

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 complexity (destructive batch operation), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, context, and parameter roles, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., deletion permanence, error handling) and doesn't explain return values (though output schema may cover this). For a tool with significant implications, it should do more to compensate for missing annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: 'reason' is described as '取消原因' (cancellation reason) with a default, and 'keyword' as '搜索关键词' (search keyword) with a default search for travel-related plans. This clarifies their roles beyond schema titles, but doesn't detail constraints (e.g., reason length, keyword matching logic). With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete compensation.

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 the tool's purpose: '取消旅行计划' (cancel travel plans) with the context of '当用户时间变动时批量删除所有旅行相关计划' (batch delete all travel-related plans when user's schedule changes). It specifies the verb (cancel/delete), resource (travel plans), and scope (batch deletion). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_plan' or 'delete_plan_by_name', which likely handle individual deletions.

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 implies usage context ('当用户时间变动时' - when user's schedule changes) and scope ('批量删除所有旅行相关计划' - batch delete all travel-related plans), suggesting this is for bulk operations triggered by schedule conflicts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for single deletions or non-travel plans) or name alternatives like 'delete_plan' for individual cases.

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