Plan an Open Figure Modules pull request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds real behavioral detail: path collisions fail closed and similar-figure hits block Apply pending user review. Neither of those is derivable from the 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?

A dense but well-ordered sentence: the action, the search step, the non-mutating guarantee, then the two guardrails. Every clause carries information, though the three clauses packed into one sentence make it slightly harder to scan than a front-loaded first line would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return expectations; 'show a GitHub PR Plan' gestures at the output but does not describe its shape or where the similar-hit review surface lives. For a two-parameter, open-world planning tool with a nested selector object, gaps remain around inputs and auth prerequisites.

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 0% and both parameters are required. providerId's value is at least pinned by the const, but exactSelector is an opaque free-form object with no documented shape, and the description only implies it identifies 'one exact Local Published Release' without explaining its keys or matching semantics.

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?

Names specific verbs and resources: sanitize one exact Local Published Release into an Open Figure module, search FigureYa/Open Figure Modules, and show a GitHub PR Plan. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling figure_library_apply_open_figure_module_pr because it explicitly says 'without writing or merging'.

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?

Explicitly frames this as the planning half of a plan/apply pair ('show a GitHub PR Plan without writing or merging') and states the gate: 'Similar hits require user review in the SFL window before Apply.' It does not name the apply sibling directly or state prerequisites such as GitHub auth, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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