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 states the tool updates dates, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites dates irreversibly), requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., if no old dates exist), or provides feedback on changes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose clearly, and the 'Args' section succinctly explains the parameter. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). Overall, it's efficient with minimal redundancy.

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 (a mutation operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, permissions) and usage guidelines. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain returns, but the gaps in other areas make it only minimally viable.

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 context beyond the input schema. The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, only listing 'year' as a string with a default. The description explains that 'year' is the '目标年份' (target year) used to update dates before it to that year, clarifying its role in the update logic. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format (e.g., YYYY) or validation rules.

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: '修复过去的日期 - 将指定年份之前的计划日期更新为指定年份' (Fix old dates - update scheduled dates before a specified year to that year). It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('scheduled dates'), and scope ('before a specified year'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'reschedule_plan' or 'update_plan_status' by focusing on date correction rather than general rescheduling or status changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'backup_plans' or 'create_plan_batch', which might involve date handling indirectly.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing plans with old dates), exclusions (e.g., not for future dates), or comparisons to siblings like 'reschedule_plan' (which might handle individual date changes) or 'update_plan_status' (which focuses on status, not dates). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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