pup_set_default_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that this is a mutation, that clear_all removes defaults, that confirm:true is required to avoid a dry-run, and that a prerequisite read is needed. It could add permission or post-success behavior details, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the action is first, the critical confirm/dry-run behavior follows, and the prerequisite lookup is last. Every 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when it applies, the confirmation safety valve, and the dependency on pup_list_transportations. It is slightly light on return-value expectations, but that is less critical given the thorough schema coverage.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds useful context about confirm and clear_all behavior, but it does not add much meaning beyond the schema entries themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Change a student's weekly default dismissal plan for one or more weekdays, or clear every default.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the one-off pup_set_plan tool via 'on any date without a specific plan.'

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 explains the default-plan context, tells the agent to read pup_list_transportations first, and states the confirm:true requirement. It does not explicitly say 'use pup_set_plan for one-off plans,' but the specificity context makes the division of labor reasonably clear.

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