Create a read-only cleanup proposal for Plane standardization, saving a plan that changes nothing until you confirm apply_standardization_plan.
Create and save a read-only cleanup proposal. The plan does not change Plane until apply_standardization_plan is confirmed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | ||
| expires_in_hours | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the critical trait: creating a plan is non-mutating and Plane changes only occur after apply_standardization_plan. It omits other meaningful behavior, notably that the saved plan is time-limited (the schema exposes expires_in_hours defaulting to 24) and what 'cleanup' actually covers.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the mutation boundary. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of leaving the two parameters unaddressed.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the highest-risk fact (no changes until apply) is covered. But for a persisted, expiring artifact with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the expiry lifecycle and plan scoping unstated.
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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: neither project_id nor expires_in_hours is mentioned or explained. An agent must guess that the plan expires and can be scoped to a project.
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 and resource ('Create and save ... cleanup proposal') and implicitly distinguishes the read-only proposal from apply_standardization_plan, which it names. The word 'standardization' is only carried by the tool name; the description says 'cleanup proposal', which is close enough for an agent to map, but the sibling get_standardization_plan (retrieval) is never contrasted.
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 two-step workflow is implied: nothing is changed until apply_standardization_plan is confirmed, so this is the preview/draft step. However, it never says 'use this before applying' explicitly, nor does it rule out get_standardization_plan or find_duplicate_candidates as alternatives for an agent that just wants to inspect state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.