propose_plan_intention

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

With no annotations, the description does substantial work: it discloses that the proposal is priced by the cost model, that the cost band covers only the slate row plus the owner's decision (zero GPU, attention estimate flagged [e]), and that downstream work is priced separately. It omits what the tool returns and whether duplicate/withdrawn proposals are handled.

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 the pricing caveat is genuinely load-bearing rather than filler. The parenthetical '[e]' marker and repeated 'prices the proposal, not the work' phrasing add some density that a reader must parse twice.

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?

Behavior is well covered for a no-annotation mutation, but with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a nullable night plus an open-ended cost_estimate object, the description leaves the agent guessing about required shapes and what comes back. Adequate, not complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain three parameters and largely doesn't. 'Intention' and the optional 'night' target are only hinted at by the phrase 'the night's slate', and 'cost_estimate' is never tied to the parameter or its expected keys/units.

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 a concrete verb+resource+destination: proposing a plan intention to the night's slate under kind plan.intention, which implicitly separates it from the sibling propose_recipe_edit. The domain jargon ('night', 'slate', 'band') makes intent graspable but not instantly crisp.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('read world://context first') and a quality bar ('aim the proposal at a real gap'). It also draws a clear boundary — the owner reads the slate and starts the night, not the agent — but never names a sibling alternative or a when-not-to-propose case.

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