plan_node_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not explain what 'plan' entails (e.g., whether it creates an approval request or directly executes), side effects, or prerequisites. The term 'Plan' is ambiguous and could misleadingly suggest execution rather than a preparatory step.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting critical details, so it is efficient but not fully effective.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the planning workflow, the effect of flush_users, or how this relates to apply_change. The output schema does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates the enum values of 'action' without adding semantics for 'panel', 'node_id', or the non-obvious 'flush_users' boolean (default true). The description adds no value beyond the schema's property names and enum list.

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 identifies the tool as planning a node action, listing specific action types (reconnect, sync, reset usage, update core) that align with the schema enum. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_create_node or plan_update_node by focusing on node action execution rather than node configuration or creation.

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 action list gives implicit guidance on when to use this tool (when needing to reconnect, sync, reset usage, or update core). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as noting that plan_update_node is for configuration changes, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case from sibling names.

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