plan_load_code

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 clearly indicates a destructive action by saying 'Replace the current plan,' but it does not explain whether unsaved changes are lost, whether validation occurs, or what happens after replacement. This is thin for a mutating 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the source clarification is compact. It earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a destructive replacement tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits return behavior, error handling, success indication, and important safety context. An agent can guess the input but not fully understand the consequences or how to verify the operation succeeded.

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 only defines 'code' as a string, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds that the code is a site plan string and can originate from plan_code, hub_import, or the browser, which gives basic meaning. However, it leaves the exact format, syntax, and expected representation of the plan string unspecified.

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 specific action—'Replace the current plan'—with a clear object and input type. It also notes the string can come from plan_code, hub_import, or the browser, which helps distinguish it from tools like plan_load or plan_new, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_load, plan_new, or plan_code. The mention of sources implies some use cases, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or comparative context.

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