zentao_create_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action but does not mention permissions required, side effects (e.g., does it trigger notifications?), or if the operation is idempotent. Annotations would help, but they are absent.

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 very concise, with a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. While it could benefit from a brief example or more structure, there is no wasted text. It is front-loaded and 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 the tool has no output schema or return value description, the description omits what the agent can expect after creation (e.g., the created plan object or confirmation). The schema covers parameters, but context about the process and outcome is missing, making it incomplete for a create operation.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate; no bonus or penalty.

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 '创建禅道产品计划' clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'product plan' in ZenTao. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zentao_update_plan and zentao_list_plans by the action, though it could be more explicit about what a plan is.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zentao_update_plan for modifications, or zentao_link_plan_stories after creation). The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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