Execute build plan

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

Rich behavioral disclosure goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it reveals live re-validation, dependency ordering, permission compilation, strict additivity, fail-stop behavior, report contents, and resume semantics. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

All four sentences carry essential information with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the core action, then expands into ordering, safety guarantees, failure behavior, and resume. It is dense but efficiently structured for an agent.

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 tool's complex behavior despite a large nested schema and no output schema: validation, ordering, permission compilation, additive promise, failure stop/report, and idempotent resumption. It tells the agent everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 already covers all parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond field-level docs: what happens to the blueprint (re-validated), the build order, how private_to/read_only are compiled into permissions, and how plan_id vs blueprint relate to the staging workflow. This goes beyond the schema but does not fully enumerate per-parameter syntax.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Execute a staged plan by plan_id, or pass a blueprint directly.' It specifies the tool's exact scope (building roles, categories, channels in dependency order) and distinguishes it from incremental tools like create_role/create_channel, as well as from plan_server_build which stages plans.

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?

It clearly states the two invocation modes (plan_id or direct blueprint) and gives strong usage context: re-validation against live server, additive-only behavior, and resumption after failure. It lacks an explicit 'use alternative X instead' statement, but the additive constraint effectively says when not to use it, and the reference to 'a plan staged by plan_server_build' ties it to its staging sibling.

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