generate_transition_plan

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds significant context about what the tool does: analyzes ownership graph, prioritizes handovers, produces a phased timeline. It doesn't mention side effects or persistence, but the non-read-only annotation is not contradicted, and the description explains the behavioral process well.

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, each earning its place: purpose, process, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource, no filler or redundant details.

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 no output schema, the description covers what the plan includes (phased timeline, task assignments) and the input scenario well. It's complete enough for an agent to know when to invoke and roughly what to expect, though it could specify the return format in more detail.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (departingEmployeeId, lastDay, successorId). The description reinforces context (departing employee, successor) but doesn't add additional details beyond the schema, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a comprehensive transition plan for a departing employee.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like recommend_successor or create_onboarding_path by focusing on the full ownership graph analysis and phased timeline.

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 states 'Use this when an employee is leaving or changing roles to ensure continuity,' giving a clear when-to-use. It doesn't mention when-not-to-use or name alternatives directly, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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