st.plan_change

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

With no annotations, the description correctly discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool does not write and is a pre-action planning step. However, it leaves undefined what a 'plan' produces, whether it persists, and what 'controlled' means, so richer behavioral context is absent.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The non-writing constraint and usage timing are front-loaded; every clause carries information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an untyped optional 'changes' field, yet the description does not explain what the plan returns, how targetUri/goal are used, or what happens after planning. It provides the right invitation to use it but not enough to invole it correctly in complex cases.

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% and the description names none of the parameters (goal, targetUri, changes) or explains how they interrelate. The text does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a clear verb ('Plan') and resource ('ST change'), and its explicit 'without writing' constraint differentiates it from mutation siblings like st.resource.patch. It does not name a particular alternative tool, so it falls short of full 5.

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?

'Use this before any destructive or complex action' gives an explicit trigger for when to call the tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the strongest possible guidance.

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