continuum_record_plan

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the meaningful upsert behavior 'Creates the run if needed' and restates the mutation explicitly. It does not cover idempotency, overwrite semantics for existing units, or error behavior, so it adds real but not exhaustive value beyond annotations.

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?

Purpose, call timing, payload shape, and mutation nature are all packed into four front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the mutation plus auto-create behavior is disclosed. The only real gap is the missing run_id description and unit-array overwrite semantics, which matter for a tool with 0% schema documentation.

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% and the units array is a bare object with additionalProperties=true, so the description carries the load by specifying the payload shape {plan_id, units:[{id,title,status,depends_on}]} and the four legal status values. It omits run_id entirely and does not explain plan_id, leaving one required parameter undocumented in both places.

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 ('Record a structured plan milestone update') and scopes it to unit-level status tracking, which separates it from the summary/progress siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to pick for non-unit-level progress, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

'Call as you define or complete units so the run can resume with exact remaining work' plus 'One call per unit status change' gives concrete timing and call-frequency guidance. No explicit exclusion or comparison against continuum_record_progress or continuum_record_summary, so the alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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