pbi_plan_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses that the tool does not apply anything ('sin aplicar nada'), which implies no side effects. It also explains the state fingerprint and the rejection behavior of pbi_apply_plan. This is substantive, though it stops short of fully describing all behavioral nuances like error conditions.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses backticks and clear structure. No filler or redundant information — every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the plan contents (diff per file, state fingerprint), the rejection condition by pbi_apply_plan, and points to pbi_capabilities for operation enumeration. Since an output schema exists, return values are likely already documented. This is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that 'operation' must be one of those listed in pbi_capabilities under planned_operations, and 'arguments' matches what the target tool would accept. This gives the agent concrete guidance for both parameters, though examples would improve it further.

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 function: 'Calcula un PLAN sin aplicar nada, y devuelve un plan_token' — it computes a plan without applying changes and returns a token. This distinguishes it from pbi_apply_plan, which is a sibling tool that would apply the plan.

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 references pbi_apply_plan and explains that it will reject the plan if the project changes, implying this tool is for previewing/planning before applying. It also directs to pbi_capabilities for valid operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other planning tools like pbi_plan_audit_fixes.

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