validate_issue_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context by stating no write occurs, which reinforces the annotation. It also introduces 'normalize', hinting at transformation behavior beyond what annotations cover, though it does not detail normalization rules.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It clearly states the action, object, and key side-effect constraint, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (nested arrays, multiple required parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It explains the core purpose and the no-write constraint, but does not elaborate on what 'normalize' entails or what validation criteria are enforced. The annotations and output schema fill some gaps, but not all.

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 only 33% (only project_ref and agent_session_handle have descriptions). The tool description provides no parameter-level guidance, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of issues, relations, decisions, and include_normalized_plan from names alone. With low coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 uses specific verbs ('Normalize and validate') and a clear resource ('bounded multi-issue plan'), and explicitly distinguishes from writing by adding 'without writing it'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools like apply_issue_plan.

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 phrase 'without writing it' clearly indicates a read-only validation/preview use case, contrasting with apply_issue_plan. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over validate_import or when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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