plan_update_core

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 reveals that the full current core is merged with the patch and that restart_nodes is explicit, but does not state whether this is a read-only planning operation or has side effects, permissions, or concurrency implications. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 only two sentences and stays on topic. However, the second sentence is somewhat awkward ('restart_nodes is explicit') and could be clearer. Overall it is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool has four parameters and an output schema, but the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It lacks context about the planning workflow, when to use it, and what the expected result is (beyond what an output schema might already provide). Given the tool's complexity and the presence of many sibling plan tools, more context is needed.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'patch' and 'restart_nodes' but does not explain their roles beyond their names. 'panel' and 'core_id' are entirely unaddressed. The statement 'restart_nodes is explicit' is vague and does not clarify the parameter's meaning or default behavior.

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 identifies the tool as 'Plan a core update', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like plan_update_node or plan_rollback. The second sentence adds specific detail about the merge behavior, further clarifying the action. However, 'core' is not defined and the overall intent of 'plan' could be more explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative plan tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to apply_change or other update tools. The only implicit clue is the name, which is not enough.

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