update_review_plan

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing optimistic-concurrency behavior ('two independent versions', read-before-write on conflict, no auto-overwrite), side effects (does not auto-reschedule dates), and the semantic distinction between 'completed' vs 'independent/mastered'. With destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false already declared, this adds the real behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries content, but the single dense paragraph with semicolon-chained clauses is heavy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a 4-parameter mutation tool, just tightly packed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; what remains — preconditions, concurrency handling, side effects, and the original/exercise branching — is all covered. Nothing an agent needs to call this multi-action tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains due_at's timezone requirement, user_note fidelity, practice_kind defaulting to original, exercise_index for the exercise branch, and attempt_id semantics for complete. The expected_record_revision / expected_plan_revision fields are only implied by the version-conflict prose rather than named, leaving a small gap.

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?

States the specific resource (review plan) and the three verbs it performs (schedule / complete / cancel), plus the scope 'one question, original or variant'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_review_plan and record_practice, which the description names as prerequisites.

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?

Gives explicit, per-action preconditions: read_study_record and read_review_plan first, schedule requires an already-incorporated question plus a timezone-bearing due_at and faithful user_note, exercise requires an index and a passing answer check, complete requires an attempt saved after scheduling. It also states what the tool does not do (no auto-reminders).

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