create-planner-bucket

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious creation action. Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no additional context about side effects, permissions, or limits. Without annotations, this would be a 1, but with them, it's a bare minimum 2.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks essential details that would justify its brevity. It is not verbose, but it does not provide enough information to be considered well-structured or informative.

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?

Given the complexity (three parameters including a nested 'body' object), the description is very incomplete. It does not explain the required fields within 'body' (such as 'planId' and 'name'), nor does it describe the return value or error conditions. No output schema exists, so the description should provide more context.

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 input schema has high coverage (67%) with descriptions for the 'body' object and its nested fields. The tool description itself mentions no parameters, so it does not add value beyond the schema. The required 'body' parameter is not explained in the description, but the schema sufficiently documents it.

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 'Create a new plannerBucket object' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (plannerBucket). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-planner-task' which create different resources. However, it does not elaborate on what a planner bucket is or its relationship to plans.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-planner-bucket' or 'delete-planner-bucket'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a plan must exist, planId must be specified). The context signals indicate a destructive action, but the description offers no usage context.

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