Plan a change to a ChurchTools group

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

The description asserts 'Writes nothing: returns a plan' (i.e. a side-effect-free, read-only operation), while the annotations explicitly declare readOnlyHint=false, meaning the tool may modify its environment. These are contradictory claims about the same property, so the behavioral disclosure and the structured data disagree — the precise situation the rubric says to score 1.

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, front-loaded with the most important fact (no writes) followed by the patch/null semantics and field naming. Every clause carries information and there is no padding, though the second sentence packs three distinct rules together without separation.

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 nested-object planner with no output schema, the description covers the key semantics (no writes, patch-only-changed, null clears, flat field names). It does not describe what the returned plan looks like or how it is subsequently applied, and the readOnlyHint conflict leaves the tool's side-effect profile ambiguous.

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 100%, so the schema already documents groupId and fields (baseline 3). The description adds genuine meaning beyond it: fields are addressed by flat names (name, note, groupStatusId, visibility) and a null value clears a field, which the bare 'The fields to set' schema text does not convey.

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 and resource: it returns a plan that patches only changed fields of a group. Combined with the title ('Plan a change to a ChurchTools group'), an agent can tell this is a dry-run planner rather than a mutator. It stops short of naming the relevant siblings (e.g. ct_execute_plan) to differentiate the plan/execute pair explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Writes nothing: returns a plan' signals this is a preview step that precedes execution, which is real implicit guidance. However, it never names an alternative (ct_execute_plan for applying the plan, or a direct update path) or states when a plan is preferable, so the when-to-use logic must be inferred.

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