execute_with_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'execute an objective'. It does not disclose whether execution is asynchronous, what side effects occur, or any required permissions. Behavioral traits like progress monitoring are implied only through parameters.

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 single sentence with no fluff, but it omits important context. It earns its place but could be more informative without being verbose.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the execution process, return status, or the role of parameters like 'executeImmediately' and 'monitoring'. Sibling tools like 'create_execution_plan' suggest a workflow, but this description lacks that context.

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 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'planningId' is self-explanatory). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Execute an objective using a pre-created execution plan', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_execution_plan or get_execution_plan. However, it could be more specific about what 'execute' entails (e.g., sequential or parallel task execution).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'orchestrate_objective' or 'orchestrate_objective_structured'. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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