review_plan_enforcement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it ranks candidate actions, but this is more about purpose than behavioral nuance. It doesn't disclose potential performance impact, what 'health' entails, or how ranking works, though output schema may cover the return format.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Review'), specifies the domain (Query Store regressions and forced-plan health), and concludes with the output behavior ('rank read-only candidate...'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 read-only, non-destructive review tool with good annotations and a comprehensive input schema, the description is largely sufficient. It might benefit from explaining what 'ranked' means or the criteria for ranking, but output schema likely provides that. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role among many similar siblings.

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%: all three parameters (top_n, database_name, window_minutes) have clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema already documents them. Baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Review' and 'rank') applied to a distinct resource (Query Store regressions and forced-plan health) and ends with a concrete outcome (candidate force/unforce actions). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like plan_health_review or dry_run_plan_action by emphasizing the read-only ranking nature.

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 description implies its usage: when you need to review regressions and forced-plan health to produce ranked candidate actions. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over purely diagnostic tools (e.g., detect_regressed_queries) or enforcement tools (e.g., plan_enforcer_tick).

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