create_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that nothing is built (a non-mutating, freeze-style operation). It says nothing about validation behavior, failure modes, permissions, or whether the plan is persisted for later apply_plan.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the payload format. No filler, though the direction enum values are listed without explanation, which is terse at the cost of clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a plan-construction tool with 0% schema coverage, the missing guidance on 'surface', the direction encoding, and how this plan relates to the applied/previewed plan leaves real gaps.

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 compensate, and it partially does by defining the component shape {ref, position:{x,y}, direction:0|4|8|12, label?}. The meaning of the direction codes is not explained, and the required 'surface' parameter and top-level 'label' are never described.

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 specific verb and resource ('Freeze an ordered plan of native blueprints') and adds a scope boundary ('without building anything') that separates it from apply_plan. It does not name the plan siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'without building anything' implies this is the pre-application step, but the description never says when to use this versus preview_plan, inspect_plan, or apply_plan. The agent must infer the workflow ordering from the sibling list.

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