taskops_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the one-call batch behavior and the critical indexing rule for `after` and `parent`. However, it does not mention what happens on failure, whether the operation is idempotent, what the return value is, or any permission prerequisites beyond 'Orchestrator only.'

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 only two sentences, both information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives the two most important invocation constraints (index-based dependencies, orchestrator-only). No filler or redundant restatement 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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, a nested `tasks` array, and no output schema, yet the description is quite terse. It captures the fundamental tree-creation model and the indexing convention, which is helpful. But it doesn't explain what the call returns, how existing milestones/cards are handled (create vs update), or provide an example, leaving some practical ambiguity for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description restates the indexing rule for `after` and `parent`, which is already present in the schema, and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond that. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't exceed it.

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: 'Write the tree in ONE call: a milestone and its cards, dependencies included.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like taskops_card by emphasizing the one-call batch creation of a milestone plus cards. The addition of 'Orchestrator only' further clarifies the intended caller.

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 states 'Orchestrator only,' which gives an explicit exclusion for when this tool should be used. It also implies this is the batch alternative to single-card tools by saying 'Write the tree in ONE call.' However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools or describe scenarios where one would prefer taskops_card over taskops_plan.

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