studio_plan_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only planning operation, and the one-to-three host limit and ordering behavior are useful context, but it does not state permissions, side effects, or what happens with invalid host counts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every clause adds a concrete detail about output scope, host count, or ordering.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. However, with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the missing explanation of the required 'goal' parameter and lack of usage guidance leave meaningful gaps.

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 explain parameters. It adds the one-to-three host constraint for 'hosts', which is not in the schema, but says nothing about the required 'goal' parameter, leaving half the input undocumented.

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 return type: role handoffs and acceptance requirements for hosts. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling studio_plan_environment.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as studio_plan_environment or studio_create_job. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'plan workflow' in the tool name.

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