plan_upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes nothing, explains the three-way diff approach, and notes the generator requirement. It does not describe failure modes or return format, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then behavior and requirement. Every clause adds information without redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the plan report looks like, but it only says 'Reports the plan only' without specifying the plan's structure or contents. This is a clear gap, though the tool's essential behavior is otherwise well described.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by stating the generator must support baseline-upgrade, which is a constraint beyond the schema's 'Generator id from list_generators' description.

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 states the tool's function: planning a re-scaffold of an existing project. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying a three-way diff and explicitly noting it writes nothing, which separates it from generate_project and the list/schema tools.

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 for re-scaffold planning, and it includes a prerequisite ('Requires a generator that supports baseline-upgrade'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, such as 'use generate_project to apply the changes'.

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