Save a day plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the write/replace behavior and structural hints, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, overwrite vs merge behavior, or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short but dense, with a run-on second sentence. It front-loads the core action but could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability. Every sentence adds value, though.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides enough to understand the key constructs (focus, star, mode). However, it omits details on default date, summary usage, and id fields, and doesn't explain return behavior, making it somewhat 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description adds meaningful context for key fields like schedule (time blocks), focus (with deliverable), star (critical few), and mode (strategic vs wing_it). However, it does not describe all parameters (e.g., date, summary, id) or compensate fully for the schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states 'Write (or replace) a day's plan' identifying the verb and resource. While it distinguishes from siblings like update_plan by implying upsert behavior, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from plan_day, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Provides contextual usage tips (e.g., mark focus sessions with deliverables, use star for critical todos, mode alignment). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_plan or plan_day, relying on implied usage.

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