submit_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — that the first plan initiates work, implying a state transition — but it does not say whether a revision replaces or appends to the prior plan, whether ordering/step count is validated, or what happens on failure.

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 short sentences with zero filler, the primary action front-loaded and the consequential behavioral detail ('first plan starts the work') placed last for emphasis.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, format, and the key side effect. The only material omission is revise semantics — whether a resubmission overwrites the existing plan.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the per-step content requirement. The description restates the ordering constraint from the schema but adds no new syntax, cardinality, or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb pair (write or revise) and a precise resource (the plan for the current entry), plus the format constraint of one item per SOP step. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like complete_step or current_step, but an agent can tell this is the planning-submission tool.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for the current entry' and by 'The first plan starts the work,' which hints that the initial submission is the entry point. However, no alternative is named and there is no statement about when revision is appropriate versus when a step should instead be marked complete via complete_step.

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