add_phase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — that this is an admin-scoped operation (privilege requirement) and that phases are optional — but says nothing about mutation semantics, ordering conflicts, duplicate handling, or reversibility.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is not padding — it clarifies the optional role of phases, which matters for deciding to call this at all.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent gets no guidance on OrderIndex, as_agent, or the success/failure outcome of the call.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only loosely implies PlanId; OrderIndex (ordering semantics, collision behavior) and as_agent (impersonation?) are entirely unexplained.

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 ('add a phase to a plan'), which is clearly distinct from the task-centric siblings like create_task and claim_next_task. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

The 'Admin:' prefix signals privileged/contextual usage, and 'Phases are an optional structural layer; tasks may be unphased' hints that this step is not always needed. However, it never states when to use this versus create_task/create_plan, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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