tempo_create_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the mandatory user confirmation, the fallback preview-and-confirmToken flow, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference. It does not cover permissions or post-confirmation return values, but the confirmation behavior is a critical addition.

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 only: the first states the purpose and scope, the second explains the non-obvious confirmation behavior. It is front-loaded and 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 mutation tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important non-schema behavior—the confirmation protocol—and the schema documents all parameters. It does not describe what the successful final call returns, but the preview/confirmToken explanation partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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 all 15 parameters are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the assignee/resource and issue/project context but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Create a new Tempo plan (resource allocation) for a user or generic resource against an issue or project.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like tempo_create_worklog and tempo_create_team by naming the exact resource and its scope.

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 describes the confirmation flow required before creation, which is a usage instruction, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as tempo_update_plan or tempo_create_worklog. The scenario is implied but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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