cognia_action_plan

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. It discloses that mutating drafts require execution and explains the auto_execute behavior, which adds important behavioral context beyond the bare schema. However, it omits details like rate limits, auth requirements, or error handling.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose with examples, then gives return value and behavior. 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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the return value (action_run_id) and the draft/execution model, but lacks details on how parameters interact, error cases, or typical usage patterns. Some gaps remain for a tool of this complexity.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic value for the executionPolicy parameter by explaining its effect, but does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters 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 clearly states the tool plans a Cognia integration action, with explicit examples like listing, creating, updating, or deleting Google Calendar events. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the action_run_id and executionPolicy, indicating it creates a draft for later execution.

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 provides some guidance on when to use auto_execute vs draft_first, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cognia_action_execute or specify scenarios to avoid this tool. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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