figure_library_plan_project_figures

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'Planning A-H does not mark any panel rendered' and 'Batch updates permit panel swaps.' These clarify side-effect semantics the annotations alone don't convey.

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?

Six compact sentences, purpose front-loaded first. Nothing is padded, though the terse fragments ('Batch updates permit panel swaps', 'Planning A-H...') trade clarity for brevity.

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 a complex nested schema at 0% description coverage and no output schema, the description covers some field-level requirements but leaves key parameters and the id/purpose mechanics unaddressed, so an agent still has gaps before calling it.

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 the nested 'changes' items are undocumented, so the description does useful work by stating title is required, slug is needed for non-English titles, and label is optional. But it omits 'purpose', 'id' (used for batch updates), and 'figuresDirectory' entirely.

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+resource: 'Plan independent figures or panels before plotting.' The 'plan' verb plus the project-figures resource makes it distinguishable from its apply/list/archive siblings, though it never names the apply counterpart it pairs with.

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?

'Review before/after paths before apply' implies the plan-then-apply workflow, and 'Plan ... before plotting' implies sequencing, but it never names figure_library_apply_project_figures explicitly nor states when to plan vs. skip planning.

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