register_cleansing_plan

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true — explicitly says 'Read-only: nothing is applied here' and adds valuable context beyond annotations: immediate validation against operation vocabulary and model schema, plus the returned plan_id. Missing only edge behavior such as what happens on validation failure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the gating condition, then the validation behavior, then the return/workflow. Every sentence adds information, though it runs slightly long across four short paragraphs.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the return value (plan_id) and the downstream chain, which covers a lot. The significant remaining gap is the opaque 'plan' parameter — for a tool whose whole job is accepting a plan, not describing its shape leaves the agent under-prepared.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'plan' is validated against the operation vocabulary and model schema, but never describes the plan's structure or what model_name refers to, leaving both required parameters under-specified.

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 ('Register a cleansing plan') and explicitly contrasts with apply_cleansing_plan. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling propose_cleansing_plan, which sounds nearly identical in intent, leaving some ambiguity about which registration tool to pick.

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 names the gating condition (DATAVEIL_REQUIRE_PLAN_APPROVAL=true), names the alternative to use otherwise (apply_cleansing_plan), and lays out the full workflow chain (register → approve → apply). An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it.

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