speaker_profile_save_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a plan' which implies mutation-free planning, but it does not mention whether this plan is persisted, what side effects it has, or what the plan contains. The 'hash-bound evidence-tagged' is a behavioral characteristic but is not explained.

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 is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is vague and under-specified, using unexplained jargon. It earns a mid-score because it is brief and to the point, but not sufficiently informative.

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 a complex required parameter (profile with 13 fields), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how to construct a valid plan, what evidence tagging means, or what the returned plan looks like. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions no parameters at all. The single required parameter 'profile' is a complex nested object, but the description adds no meaning about its structure or purpose. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 ('Create') and a resource ('speaker-profile save/update plan'), and adds distinguishing features ('hash-bound evidence-tagged'). It is clear that this tool creates a plan rather than executing, but the jargon 'hash-bound evidence-tagged' may be ambiguous without context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like speaker_profile_save or speaker_profile_save_execute. The naming convention suggests plan/execute separation, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this plan-creating tool.

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