PlanManager MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '级联删除所有子计划' (cascading deletion of all sub-plans), which is valuable behavioral information about destructive side effects. However, it doesn't disclose other critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - just 7 Chinese characters that convey the core action and key behavioral trait (cascading deletion). Every word earns its place with no wasted text. It's front-loaded with the primary action followed by the important qualification.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. While it mentions cascading deletion (important context), it doesn't address critical aspects: confirmation requirements, permanence of deletion, error handling, or what the output schema contains. The existence of sibling tools like 'preview_delete_plan' suggests there might be a safer alternative, but the description provides no guidance on this.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in schema), but the tool has only 1 parameter. The description doesn't explicitly mention the 'plan_id' parameter, but the cascading deletion context implies it operates on a specific plan. Since there's only one parameter and the schema clearly defines it as a required integer, the description doesn't need extensive parameter explanation. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for single-parameter tools.

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 states the action ('删除计划' meaning 'delete plan') which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'delete_plan_by_name' - both appear to delete plans but using different identifiers. The description is vague about what type of plan is being deleted or what system this operates in.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_plan_by_name', 'cancel_travel_plan', or 'preview_delete_plan'. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or comparison with sibling tools. The only implicit guidance is that it requires a plan_id parameter.

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