PlanManager MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a change operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, side effects on related steps, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'plan_id' description could be more precise (e.g., specifying it's for a plan, not just 'item').

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), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for a mutation tool in a complex sibling set.

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 meaningful context: 'plan_id' is described as 'The ID of the item' (though vague), and 'new_time' specifies format as 'ISO 8601 date string' with an example. This provides essential semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed.

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 verb ('Change') and resource ('scheduled time for a plan or step'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_plan_status' or 'fix_old_dates', which might also involve time adjustments, so it doesn't fully achieve sibling differentiation.

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, exclusions, or compare it to siblings such as 'update_plan_status' or 'fix_old_dates', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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