whim_plan_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses persistence across sessions and cross-agent retrievability, but it does not mention overwrite semantics for the same plan name or any side effects. The description is honest but lacks depth on behavioral nuances.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no wasted words. It is exemplary in conciseness.

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 simple save tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual information: persistence and cross-agent retrieval. It misses minor details like overwrite behavior, but overall it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 (save) and resource (plan document), and the persistence and cross-agent retrieval details distinguish it from sibling tools like whim_plan_get. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need to persist a plan for later retrieval by another agent, providing context but no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives like whim_facts_save or whim_snippet_save. It gives clear context without spelling out when not to use it.

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