create_hardening_plan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (a plan resource is created) while the description clarifies that the target itself is left untouched — a genuinely useful disambiguation, not a contradiction. It also discloses what the plan contains and that it is 'sealed'. It stops short of stating auth needs or whether plans can be regenerated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the key non-mutation caveat at the end. No filler or repetition.

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 shape need not be described, and the description covers the plan's contents adequately. However, with two opaque required parameters and no usage routing, it leaves gaps for a tool sitting between audit_target and apply_hardening_plan in a multi-step workflow.

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?

Two required parameters (audit_id, target_id) have 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing. The description mentions neither parameter nor their relationship, leaving their meaning and the requirement for a prior audit entirely to inference from the names.

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 ('Build a sealed plan') and enumerates the plan's contents (diffs, supported actions, prerequisites, manual work). The closing clause 'Does not modify the target' implicitly separates it from apply_hardening_plan, though the sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: it creates a plan, so an agent infers this precedes apply_hardening_plan. It never states when to prefer this over get_hardening_guide or that an audit must exist first, and names no alternative or prerequisite workflow.

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