Bytebase: submit a plan for review

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

Although annotations are absent, the description clearly discloses the consequential side effect: submitting the plan starts the approval workflow and, on approval, Bytebase creates the rollout and runs the SQL. It also warns against premature submission with a specific 'Do not call unless' note, compensating fully for the missing annotations.

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 purposeful sentences: the first states the action, the second provides the workflow context, and the third adds a necessary guardrail about labels. No redundant filler or repeated schema content.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers purpose, side effects, trigger conditions, and optional-parameter handling. An agent has enough context to decide whether and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context by telling the agent where the plan value comes from (bytebase_create_plan) and how to treat labels: check the project's label definitions and ask the user instead of inferring them.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — "Open a review Issue for a Plan" — and distinguishes this from sibling tools such as bytebase_create_plan and bytebase_list_issue_labels. It also clarifies the tool's role in the approval workflow (starting the rollout after approval), leaving no ambiguity.

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 says when to call it: after bytebase_create_plan and only after the user confirms the plan is ready. It also gives a concrete condition for not calling it from the label workflow, telling the agent to check bytebase_list_issue_labels first and ask the user rather than guessing.

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