plan_saga_step

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 persistence, version pinning, and the possibility of governance adding an approval gate or rejecting the plan, which is useful. However, it omits permissions, return behavior, failure semantics, and 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Both clauses contribute distinct information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot determine what response to expect, how 'reject the plan' manifests, how parameters map to behavior, or what prerequisites exist before calling this tool.

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?

The schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description names none of them. saga_id, action, input, depends_on, approval_required, and key are left entirely to schema titles and types, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 'Persist' with 'workflow node' to state a specific action and resource, and the governance clause adds meaningful context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like execute_saga_step or approve_saga_step, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 phrasing implies this is for the planning/persistence phase of a saga step rather than execution or approval, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, and the conditions under which governance might reject the plan are left unclear.

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