PlanManager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, whether status changes are reversible, what happens to associated steps when a plan status changes, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 brief with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality. The only minor inefficiency is the slightly vague 'item' reference in the plan_id description instead of being more specific.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and only 2 parameters with basic schema coverage, the description provides the minimum viable context. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally address more behavioral aspects like side effects, permissions, or constraints to be fully complete for agent use.

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 provides basic semantic information for both parameters: 'plan_id' is described as 'The ID of the item' and 'status' gets enumerated values. However, it doesn't clarify what constitutes a 'plan' versus a 'step' (mentioned in the first sentence), nor does it explain format expectations beyond the enum list. This provides minimal but adequate parameter context.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('status of a plan or step'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'reschedule_plan' or 'cancel_travel_plan' that might also involve status changes, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'cancel_travel_plan' and 'reschedule_plan' that might handle specific status transitions, there's no indication of whether this tool is the general-purpose status updater or when other tools should be preferred.

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