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. It clearly indicates this is a preview/simulation tool that doesn't perform actual deletion, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like what specific impact information is returned, whether it requires special permissions, or if there are rate limits.

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 and well-structured - a single clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The bilingual presentation (Chinese description with English parameter label) is efficient.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate coverage for a preview/simulation tool. It clearly establishes the tool's purpose and safety profile (non-destructive), though could benefit from more detail about what 'impact' information is provided.

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 for the single parameter 'plan_id' by specifying it's '要预览的计划ID' (the plan ID to preview). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this provides adequate semantic clarification beyond the basic schema type information, though it could specify format expectations more clearly.

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 with specific verb ('预览删除计划的影响' - preview the impact of deleting a plan) and resource ('计划' - plan), and explicitly distinguishes it from actual deletion with '不实际删除' (does not actually delete). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'delete_plan' and 'delete_plan_by_name'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool - to preview deletion impact before actual deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'delete_plan' for actual deletion, though the distinction is strongly implied through the '不实际删除' clause.

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