ras_plan_set

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns before/after values, rewrites the plan file, and requires a copied project. It also defines format constraints for intervals and dates. This adds significant transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences lead with purpose, then safety note, then format constraints. Every sentence provides distinct, necessary information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope, return behavior, and key format constraints. It also references ras_project_copy for the copy requirement. Minor omission: it does not explicitly mention that the plan must exist or that unlisted settings remain unchanged, but this is acceptable for a settings tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable format details for interval strings ('10SEC','1MIN','15MIN','1HOUR') and date formats ('02JAN1900 0000' or ISO), which are not fully enumerated in the schema descriptions.

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 it changes settings of one plan (.p##) in place, enumerating the settings: simulation window, intervals, cores, short id, title, description, geometry, and flow file. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from siblings like ras_run or ras_project_copy.

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?

It explicitly instructs to edit a copy of the project (ras_project_copy) and warns that the tool rewrites the plan file. This provides a clear prerequisite and effectively communicates when not to use it (on original files), while referencing a sibling tool.

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