submit_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates tasks (a write operation) and returns them with real IDs. It explains the dependency indexing mechanism. However, it does not mention whether it is idempotent, if it validates dependencies or project existence, or any side effects like overwriting existing tasks. Still, it is fairly transparent about the core 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 consists of three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose statement, dependency explanation, and return value with next step. It is front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 the essential aspects: what the tool does, how dependencies work, what it returns, and the next action. It is missing details about project existence requirements and behavior on repeated calls, but for a tool with a clear purpose and schema-defined parameters, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% for top-level parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds critical semantics for the `depends_on` field: 'zero-based indexes into the tasks list itself,' implying tasks must be ordered topologically. However, it does not describe `project_id` or the `tasks` array beyond what the schema already provides through the $defs. The added value is moderate.

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: 'Decompose a project goal into a dependency-ordered task graph in one call.' This specifies a verb (decompose), resource (project goal into task graph), and scope (one call). It distinguishes from siblings like create_project (creates a project) and list_tasks (reads tasks) by focusing on creating a structured plan of tasks with dependencies.

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 a clear usage hint: after submitting the plan, agents should 'claim ready tasks with claim_task.' This guides the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like individually creating tasks via update_task. The context signals show many sibling tools, but no exclusion criteria are given.

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