content_generate_plan

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description doesn't explain side effects, what gets created or destroyed, or why it's destructive. It adds little beyond the annotations and doesn't clarify why this action is destructive or what 'generate_plan' does to state.

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 relatively short and describes the routing context plus the two arguments. However, it spends space on 'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope' which is implementation detail, and lacks meaningful behavioral context.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no required parameters and zero schema coverage, the description leaves significant gaps: no examples, no expected output, no restrictions, no clarification of when it should be used.

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 0%, and the description's param definitions are minimal: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. It doesn't explain the expected structure, format, or relationship between message and inputs.

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 states it runs the content domain agent action `generate_plan`, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explain what 'generate_plan' actually does or produces, so the agent may not understand the purpose beyond the 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like content_generate_content, content_plan_domain_intelligence, or dispatch_domain_agent. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher but doesn't help select it among many similar content and dispatch tools.

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