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. While it mentions validation and saving behaviors, it lacks critical details: what validation rules are applied, whether validation failures prevent saving, what happens when auto_save=false, what permissions are required, whether this is idempotent, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with database operations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args section is well-structured. However, the Chinese-only content might limit accessibility in some contexts, and the parameter explanations could be more informative given the schema coverage gap.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a validation and database save operation with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more context about validation rules, error conditions, and the relationship to sibling creation tools. The current description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 parameter explanations in the Args section, clarifying that plan_data should be a JSON string and auto_save controls database persistence. However, it doesn't explain the JSON structure expected for plan_data, what constitutes a valid name, or the implications of the auto_save default value. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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: '验证计划数据并保存到数据库' (validate plan data and save to database). This specifies both the validation action and the saving action with the target resource (plan data to database). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_plan' or 'create_plan_batch', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 multiple sibling tools for plan creation and management (create_plan, create_plan_batch, create_study_plan, create_travel_plan), there's no indication of when validation-and-save is preferred over direct creation tools or when auto_save should be enabled/disabled.

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