Plan Suede Workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the ordering logic of the output (strategy first, then build/craft, then visibility, demand and revenue), which tells the agent what shape the plan will take. It does not say what happens when no skill matches the goal or how the plan degrades, leaving a modest gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the transformation is stated first, the illustrative goals second, and the phase ordering last. Every clause carries information, though the three parenthetical examples make the sentence dense enough that a slightly tighter phrasing would read better.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains for the description is the planning semantics, which it supplies via the phase ordering. The only missing piece is edge-case behavior for goals that map poorly onto available skills, which is minor for a read-only planning 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 description coverage is 100%, so goal, area and maxSteps are already documented in the schema, including the enum, default and max of 8. The description reinforces the kind of free-text goal expected via its examples but adds nothing about the area filter or how maxSteps truncates the phase ordering. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb and transformation — turning a goal into an ordered sequence of Suede skills — with three concrete example goals. It is unmistakably different from every sibling (list/search/get/audit tools), which all retrieve or assess rather than 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 example goals ("launch my app", "get cited by ChatGPT", "fix a page that gets no signups") imply the kind of situation this tool is for, so usage is inferable. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. list_suede_skills or search_suede_skills) or states when not to use it, and does not say whether planning should precede installation.

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