Move Action Plan Into "In Progress"

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

Annotations lack behavioral details (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description must carry the burden. It mentions that the status change restricts future updates and that a new object is created (HTTP 201). However, the claim that it 'Creates a new Action Plans' contradicts the 'move' title and lacks clarity on whether the original plan is unchanged or modified. This inconsistency undermines transparency.

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?

The description is moderately concise but includes redundant phrasing ('Move Action Plan into In Progress. This will set the status of the Plan to in_progress') and extraneous details like the full endpoint URL. The contradictory statement about creating a new object adds unnecessary confusion. Could be tightened to two sentences.

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?

The description provides some context: the status change, subsequent update restrictions, and the HTTP response. However, it lacks clarity on prerequisites (e.g., current status must be 'draft'?), and the creation claim is misleading. Without an output schema, the description partially covers the return value but does not fully compensate for the complexity of a state-changing mutation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (project_id, id), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that these are required parameters without adding new meaning or usage details 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 description clearly states that the tool moves an action plan into 'In Progress' by setting its status to 'in_progress'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_action_plan_back_into_draft' by the target state. However, the mention of 'Creates a new Action Plans' introduces ambiguity about whether this is a move or a creation, slightly reducing 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?

The description indicates when to use this tool ('to perform the move action') and notes that once in this state, only specific updates are allowed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as differentiating from 'move_action_plan_back_into_draft'. The context is implied but not explicit.

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