update_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses atomic updates, soft-delete behavior, recovery option, and that hard delete is separate. However, it omits auth requirements (except for hard delete), rate limits, or other side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide specific behavioral notes. No redundant or extra information. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values. It covers key behaviors but does not elaborate on parameters like 'GitHub linkage' or 'metadata' merging behavior. With 7 parameters and low schema coverage, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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 low (29% only for 'metadata' and 'restore'). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'status'='archived' triggers soft-delete and that 'restore' is required for un-archiving. It also implies atomicity across all properties. This compensates for the schema 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 'Edit any plan property atomically' and lists specific properties. It distinguishes this tool from 'delete_plan' by noting soft-delete via status='archived' versus hard delete via REST-only endpoint, providing clear differentiation.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (editing plan properties) and when not (hard delete requires REST-only admin auth). It also explains the restore flag for un-archiving. However, it does not compare with sibling tools that update other resources, which is acceptable given they target different entities.

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