form_intention

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default status, draft auto-promotion, and dashboard visibility, but leaves out details like mutation behavior, auth requirements, error handling, or the effects of malformed input.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose, the second explains status usage, and the third details draft behavior. No extraneous information.

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 7 parameters, nested object schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers creation intent and status modes but lacks information on return values, validation rules, error conditions, and limits. It is minimally sufficient.

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 43%. The description adds meaning for the status parameter (when to use draft vs active) and rationale (surfaces in review). For other parameters like title, description, visibility, and tree, it adds little beyond the schema. This partially compensates for coverage gaps.

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 tool creates a plan that achieves a goal, including an initial phase/task tree, in one call. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like extend_intention or delete_plan.

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?

The description provides usage context for the two status modes: default 'active' for human-directed creation, and 'draft' for autonomous loops requiring human review. It also explains the auto-promotion behavior of drafts. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for similar actions.

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