plan_set

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'Replaces any existing plan' (destructive behavior) and 'Step 1 becomes the active next_move' (activation semantics). These add value above the destructiveHint annotation, which only flags destructiveness generically.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, replacement behavior, activation rule, and usage guideline. No fluff or repetition. Exceptionally well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it affects existing state, and what constitutes valid input. The addition of a quality guideline for steps (concrete, completable) makes it fully self-contained for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes steps as 'Ordered list of concrete steps. First step becomes active immediately.' The description adds 'Each step should be a concrete, completable action,' which is a slight refinement but largely redundant with the schema. No significant new meaning is provided.

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 clearly states the tool 'Set an ordered plan for an entity' and explicitly notes it 'Replaces any existing plan', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_add. The verb+resource+scope is specific and actionable.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when committing to a sequence of work — not for brainstorming.' This gives a clear when-to-use signal and an exclusion. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context implies this is for finalizing a plan rather than exploring ideas.

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