Create Action Plan Receiver Signature

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

Annotations clearly indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds HTTP 201 return status and the parameter constraint, but contains confusing copy-paste error. Inconsistent messaging reduces trust in behavioral understanding.

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?

Description is somewhat verbose and includes repetitive/erroneous phrases (e.g., 'Creates a new Action Plans' twice). Could be more concise by removing redundant endpoint info already in schema.

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?

Provides endpoint path and HTTP response code, but no details on return object structure, authentication, or rate limits. For a tool with no output schema, more completeness is desirable.

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 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds valuable clarification that only one of attachment or attachment_string may be passed, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool creates an Action Plan Receiver Signature, but later text says 'Use this to create a new Action Plans' which is contradictory and confusing. This degrades clarity.

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?

Provides a key constraint (only one of attachment or attachment_string) and lists required parameters, but lacks guidance on when to use this versus sibling signature tools (e.g., approver vs receiver). No explicit when-not-to-use advice.

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