Move Company Action Plan Template Into "In Revision"

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it creates a new Action Plan and returns the created object (HTTP 201). This indicates creation rather than mutation of the original. However, it doesn't clarify if the original remains or gets moved. Also, openWorldHint=true suggests unknown side effects, which the description does not address.

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 with a clear first sentence, then states the effect, creation behavior, required params, and API info. It is well-structured but could be slightly shorter without losing essential details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value: 'returns the created object on success (HTTP 201)'. It also provides the endpoint and notes the parameters are URL path parameters. The description covers all key aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for company_id and id. The description only restates 'Required parameters: company_id, id' without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action: 'Move Company Action Plan Template into "In Revision"' and explains it sets the status to 'in_revision'. The verb 'Move' and resource are clear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_company_action_plan_template_into_published' by focusing on the 'In Revision' state.

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 provides context: 'Once in this state, the Company Action Plan Template is able to be updated.' It implies when to use (to revise a template). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use. Sibling tools exist for other states, but no direct comparison is made.

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