plan_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the key nuance that it does not apply the create, only builds it, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output represents, and since annotations are sparse, the description carries a heavier burden that it only partially fulfills.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the crucial 'Build (not apply)' distinction. The example is embedded efficiently. There is no fluff or redundant wording. It earns a high score for structure, though it could have been slightly more explicit about the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema exists. The description covers only 'items' via an example, but leaves 'market' and 'entity' undefined, which are likely essential for correct usage. It also does not mention what the tool returns or any constraints on the plan structure. Given the complexity and the sparse schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably call this tool without additional assumptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is responsible for explaining parameters. It provides an example for 'items' showing the expected structure (fields like campaignId, adGroupId, keywordText, matchType, bid, state), which adds valuable meaning. However, 'market' and 'entity' remain unexplained, and the description does not clarify the allowed values or their semantics. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 states a specific action ('Build') and object ('a create'), and explicitly contrasts with 'not apply', which distinguishes it from the sibling apply_plan. However, the term 'create' is somewhat vague without additional context, and the example is the only concrete detail. It is clear enough to infer that it constructs a plan for creating entities, but could be more precise.

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 phrase 'not apply' hints that this tool is for building a plan rather than executing it, which differentiates it from apply_plan. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are preferred. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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