Create or read an installation plan

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only qualified, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: Warden inspects the package nodes, lists permissions/dependencies/blockers, and the returned plan's sha256 is a prerequisite for installation consent. It does not mention the discard operation exposed via the schema, which is a minor transparency gap.

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 terse sentences plus a clear human-facing directive. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the sha256/consent instruction is concise but actionable. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 description covers the main create/read workflow competently enough, but there is no output schema and the return value is only partially described via sha256 and the Warden listing. The discard behavior and advanced acknowledgment/prerelease parameters are absent from the narrative, making the description less complete than the tool's complexity warrants.

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 43%, so the tool description needs to compensate. It clarifies that releaseId/projectId relate to an installation plan for a release and that planId is used for reading an existing plan, but it leaves allowPrerelease and the two acknowledged arrays to name inference and does not mention the discard flag at all.

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 clearly identifies two concrete operations — 'creates an installation plan for one release' and 'reads an existing plan by id' — and names the resource explicitly. It also enumerates what the plan contains, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like open77_workshop_install or open77_workshop_status.

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 embeds practical usage guidance: generate a plan, show it to the human, obtain consent, and use the plan's sha256 with open77_workshop_install. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or which alternative to prefer, but the reference to the install sibling provides enough routing context.

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