PlanManager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '级联删除所有子计划' (cascading deletion of all sub-plans), which is a critical behavioral trait indicating destructive, irreversible action. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling, confirmation steps, or what the output schema returns. For a destructive tool 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 concise with two sentences, but the structure is inefficient: the first sentence mixes purpose and behavioral traits, while the second is a parameter note. It's front-loaded with key information but could be better organized (e.g., separating purpose, behavior, and parameters). Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'plan_name' in the description).

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 tool's complexity (destructive deletion with cascading effects), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is partially complete. It covers the destructive nature and parameter semantics but misses critical context like permissions, error cases, or confirmation requirements. It's adequate for basic use but has clear gaps for safe operation.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that 'plan_name' supports '模糊匹配' (fuzzy matching), which is not evident from the schema alone (schema description coverage is 0%). With only one parameter, the description compensates well for the low schema coverage by clarifying the matching behavior, though it could specify fuzzy matching rules (e.g., partial matches).

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: '按名称删除计划' (delete plan by name) with the specific action of deletion and target resource of plans. It distinguishes from the sibling 'delete_plan' by specifying deletion by name rather than ID, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion-related tools like 'preview_delete_plan'. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from siblings.

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 some usage context: it mentions '适合语音交互' (suitable for voice interaction) and implies usage when deleting by name with fuzzy matching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_plan' (likely by ID) or 'preview_delete_plan', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but incomplete.

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