plan_change

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully flags rollback/atomicity intent and points at options like auto_rollback and dry_run_first, but never states the critical fact that this only produces a plan and does not mutate the model (unlike apply_plan), nor any auth/prerequisite requirements.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary, then a scannable usage list and short Args/Returns blocks. Slightly verbose in the Returns section (an output schema already exists), but every other sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers intent templates, option shapes, and the return fields the agent needs to chain into apply_plan. The main omission is the non-mutating/side-effect guarantee and any connectivity prerequisite.

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% and the schema declares intent as a bare string with no enum, so the description is the only source of the four valid template values and the per-template options shape (old_path, new_path, scope). It adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, though options remains loosely specified.

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 artifact ('Create a versionable, multi-step execution plan') plus its source ('from an intent template'). This clearly separates it from the sibling apply_plan, which presumably executes what this produces, without needing to open either schema.

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 gives an explicit 'Use this tool when the user asks to' list covering complex/risky operations, safe_rename, and audit/deploy/DAX runs. It provides clear positive context but names no alternatives (e.g. apply_plan for execution) or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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