jamesdsp_key_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions verification ('after verifying that the installed version exposes it') but does not clarify whether the tool mutates state, what 'hash-bound' implies, or whether it is read-only. The term 'change' could suggest mutation, but there is no explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotation support, the description is incomplete. It does not explain 'hash-bound', what the plan returns, how the plan is used, or the meaning of 'exposes it'. Critical context for an agent to correctly plan and later execute is missing.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (key, value, home). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving an agent without guidance on what values to provide or their format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('a hash-bound change for one JamesDSP key') and includes a distinguishing verification step. It differentiates from siblings like jamesdsp_key_execute (execute vs plan) and jamesdsp_preset_plan (key vs preset) without needing to open schemas.

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 implies it is a planning step prior to execution (based on the 'plan' suffix and sibling jamesdsp_key_execute), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond verifying the version exposes the key.

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