plan_create_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that a token is returned and that user confirmation is required before applying, implying this is a planning step that doesn't immediately apply changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it has, or the nature of the token.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The primary action is front-loaded ('Plan adding a node'), and the additional instruction is neatly appended. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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's complexity (nested object, multiple siblings), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the overall workflow, what the token represents, what subsequent steps (e.g., apply_change) are needed, or what the plan output contains. While an output schema exists, it's not shown here, and the description relies on prior knowledge.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'panel' or 'node' parameters. The node parameter is an open object with additionalProperties, so its structure is ambiguous. The description adds no value to the parameter semantics, making it hard for an agent to construct correct arguments.

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 'Plan adding a node,' which clearly identifies the action (plan) and the resource (node). It distinguishes from sibling tools like plan_update_node or plan_create_core by explicitly targeting node creation. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'plan' entails, which is somewhat vague.

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 specific usage instruction: 'Apply only after asking the user to confirm the returned token.' This gives a clear condition for when the tool should be invoked (or when the plan should be applied). It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is useful for sequencing.

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