EasyTopic: write plan

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

With no annotations, the description reveals versioning and history recording, which are important behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but for a simple write operation it is fairly transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. Critical information is front-loaded, covering action, target, versioning, usage sequence, and distinction from sibling.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits adequately. However, it lacks parameter descriptions, making it slightly incomplete for a 2-param tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the two parameters (topicId, planHtml). It implies planHtml is the plan content but does not clarify format or that topicId identifies the topic. 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 action (writes implementation plan), the target (Topic's plan custom field), and key traits (versioned, recorded in Topic History). It distinguishes from sibling tools like easytopic_transition_status by naming the specific resource and action.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('before transitioning a Topic out of the todo status') and provides a sequence instruction ('write the plan first, then transition'). This clearly differentiates from easytopic_transition_status and gives direct usage context.

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