pup_set_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states that this mutates real-world dismissal and requires confirm:true, otherwise it's a dry-run. However, it doesn't explain whether setting a date overwrites an existing plan or how clearing works relative to existing overrides, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a clear usage pointer and confirm requirement. No redundancy, 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?

Given the complexity (7 params, mutation, confirm semantics) and absence of output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, confirms the dry-run behavior, and points to the right resource for option-specific requirements. It doesn't describe the response format, but that's not mandatory without an output schema. The delegation to pup_list_transportations is acceptable.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, so the description adds value by explaining the relationship between transportation_id and null (clearing to default), and highlighting that note, car_number, and early_dismissal_time are conditional on the selected option. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 verb ('Change' or 'clear') and resource ('how a student is dismissed on one or more specific dates'), and distinguishes from default-plan tools by explicitly mentioning weekly default. It also references reading pup_list_transportations, clarifying the relationship to sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs to read pup_list_transportations first and explains that options differ by required fields (note, car number, early-dismissal time). It also notes the confirm requirement for real execution vs. dry-run. It doesn't explicitly say when to use pup_set_default_plans instead, but the context implies it.

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