table_plan_apply

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true; the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it returns server validation errors/warnings and that merge patches the stored plan (versus the implied full replace otherwise). It still does not state what exactly is destroyed on a non-merge apply or whether partial validation failures leave the table mutated.

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 terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the effect and return behavior come before the merge detail. The 'shape, seats, areas, snaps' fragment is jargon-dense but does real work.

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 destructive, open-world tool with a nested free-form parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return contract and merge semantics but not the plan's shape, permissions, or failure atomicity. Pointing at table-plan docs mitigates this, but the delegation is the main reason it is not a 2.

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 33% and 'plan' is an undescribed free-form nested object, so the description has to compensate. It does so partially by naming the plan's content domains and by explaining merge's patch semantics, but the plan's actual key structure is left entirely to external docs.

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 and resource ('Apply the TTCraft declarative table plan') and enumerates the plan's domain contents (shape, seats, areas, snaps), which is far more informative than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, blueprint_apply, but the resource is concrete enough to be selectable.

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 one real precondition — 'Read table-plan docs first' — which correctly routes the agent to the docs_search/docs_read siblings. However it never says when to use this versus blueprint_apply, table_save, or objects_patch, nor when not to apply a plan.

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