zadig_project_plan

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: 'always dry-run and never mutates,' which is essential for safe usage. However, it provides no additional behavioral context such as how the plan is generated, what inputs it relies on, or any validation 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 two sentences long with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical dry-run behavior is stated immediately in the second sentence, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool lacks annotations and has zero parameter documentation coverage. The description explains the safety profile but fails to provide enough context for an agent to know how to construct a valid call, especially with three optional parameters and complex project objects. Additional guidance on parameter usage and intended scenarios would be needed for completeness.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention mode, project, or project_key at all, leaving the agent with no guidance on what these parameters mean or how to populate them correctly. This is a significant 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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Plan Zadig project create/update/delete.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing that it is always a dry-run and never mutates, making its role as a planning-only tool clear.

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 implies usage context by highlighting that the tool is always dry-run and never mutates, suggesting it is for previewing rather than executing changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., apply tools) or state when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit.

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