plan_create_core

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Plan creating', which hints at a non-mutating planning activity, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it might have, or whether it validates anything. The agent cannot determine if this action is safe or what the nature of the result is beyond the output schema.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word adds some meaning. No redundant or irrelevant content is present.

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 nested object parameter and the fact that an output schema exists, the description still lacks critical context. It does not explain how to construct the 'core' object, what the 'panel' string refers to, or what the planning process entails (e.g., whether it returns a diff or a preview). The description is too sparse for a tool involving a flexible nested object, making it incomplete.

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 schema provides no descriptions for its two parameters. The description adds a hint that 'core' should be a 'CoreCreate body' from the panel, which gives some semantic direction. However, it does not explain what a 'panel' is or the expected structure of the 'core' object, leaving significant ambiguity for the open-ended additionalProperties object.

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 the tool plans creation of a core configuration, using a specific 'CoreCreate body'. This is a clear verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like plan_create_node or plan_create_host by specifying 'core' and its body type. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'plan' entails, keeping it a step below the highest clarity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention its relationship to plan_update_core, apply_change, or inspect_change, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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