whodb_platform_write_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, and the description is consistent with them ("without executing it"). Beyond that it discloses the return surface (payload keys, suggested reads, direct impact) and the important negative behavior that no confirmation token is created, which is context the annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior (validate/preview, no execution) before the behavioral and targeting detail. Slightly long, but each sentence carries distinct information and none is filler.

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 10-parameter tool with a nested workspace object and no output schema, the description does the needed work by summarizing what the preview returns and clarifying the confirmation-token gap. What remains thin is how the plan relates to the confirm/execute flow and whether the returned plan is reused elsewhere.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description's mention of workspace {host, org, project} largely restates what the schema says about per-call targeting not changing defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds no enum, format or precedence detail beyond the schema.

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 pair (validate/preview) plus the resource (a hosted platform write) and immediately disambiguates from the real mutating siblings by saying it executes nothing. An agent can tell it apart from whodb_platform_create/update/delete/action without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: call it before mutating tools when a safe dry-run summary is needed. It does not name which sibling mutators it precedes (create, update, delete, action) or contrast with adjacent planning tools like whodb_platform_change_impact or whodb_platform_confirm, so the routing is clear but not fully closed.

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