Bytebase: update a plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: title edits redirect to the review Issue, statement edits create a new immutable Sheet and repoint the plan, and post-rollout changes are refused. These are important side effects beyond a generic 'update' wording.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action and then add distinct constraints and side effects. Every sentence earns its place and there is no unnecessary repetition of schema 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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the editable fields, lifecycle limitations, side effects, and supported plan provenance. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and anticipate important behavioral outcomes.

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 only 50%, so the description compensates by explaining what the optional title, description, and statement parameters do, including statement's Sheet-repointing behavior and title's Issue redirection. It adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, though it says little specific about the description parameter.

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: 'Edit a plan's title, description, and/or SQL statement.' It also distinguishes the tool from create/get/submit/close plan siblings by detailing its update scope and the special-case behavior around review Issues.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions: the tool works before and after submission, statement changes are refused after a rollout, and only single-spec plans created by bytebase_create_plan are supported. This is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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