panelica_plans_post_v1_plans

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

The description states 'Mutating: changes server state,' which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false but does not go much beyond it. It does add the required plans:write scope, an auth detail not present in the annotations, though it omits side effects beyond generic state change.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, endpoint, scopes, and mutating effect. 'Category: Plans' and the mutating line are somewhat redundant with existing metadata, but the overall footprint is appropriately small.

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 mutating create operation with no output schema and an undeclared request body, the definition is not complete enough to invoke correctly: no plan fields, constraints, response, or conditions are described. It covers endpoint, scopes, and general safety, but leaves the core payload unknown.

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?

The only parameter is an opaque body object whose schema is explicitly 'not statically declared — see API docs.' The tool description adds nothing about required fields, example payloads, or what a plan consists of, so the agent gets little help constructing a valid request.

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 'Create plan' and gives the exact endpoint POST /v1/plans, so the action and resource are unambiguous. This is distinct from sibling operations on plans (get, patch, delete) and from other create tools by resource name.

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 never says when to prefer this over the plan get/patch/delete siblings or what conditions require creating a plan. The category, HTTP method, and scopes provide context but not when-to-use guidance or exclusions.

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