Дописати до плану

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation appends and does not overwrite, which is a useful trait. However, it does not mention whether PLAN.md must already exist, whether the tool creates it if missing, or any error conditions, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences with zero waste, stating the primary action first and the key behavioral guarantee second. It is well-structured and easy to parse, meeting the standard for conciseness.

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 simple append tool with one parameter and no output schema, it covers the essential operation, but it lacks context such as whether the plan file must exist prior to calling, what happens on failure, or the effect of repeated appends. Given that annotations are absent, the description could be more complete about the tool's side effects and expectations.

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 schema already fully describes the parameter ('Готовий фрагмент Markdown' – ready-made Markdown fragment) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Adds a section to the end of PLAN.md') and the target resource, and explicitly notes it does not rewrite existing text, which distinguishes it from any overwrite operation. This is specific and unambiguous, and the sibling plan_read clearly contrasts in function.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning context such as 'use plan_read to view the plan before appending' or any prerequisite conditions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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