plan_save

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosuresn. It does so by explicitly warning that an existingplan of the same name will be overwritten, and by specifying the destination as the writable home folder. Missing return behavior is a minor gap; the destructive side effect is clearly disclosed.

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 filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the overwrite warning earns its place as a crucial behavioral note.

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 simple two-parameter save tool, the description is mostly complete: action, path, and overwrite behavior are all covered. The main omissions are the meaning of notes and the shape of the response, but neither prevents a correct invocation with the required parameter.

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 description conveys that the required name parameter becomes the filename in plans/<name>.json. However, the optional notes parameter is not described at all, and since the schema has zero property descriptions, the agent gets no guidance about whether notes are saved, appended, or merely metadata.

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 names a specific action, resource, and destination: save the current plan to plans/<name>.json. It clearly differentiates plan_save from siblings like plan_load, plan_new, and plan_list by focusing on the persistence behavior.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want to persist the current plan to a named file. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the save-versus-load role is implied well enough for most use cases.

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