apply_plan

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

The annotations already indicate read-write, idempotent, and destructive behavior; the description adds the 'once' constraint and the approval/coverage precondition. It does not explain what side effects occur or why destructiveHint is set, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 one sentence, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds meaning: the target, the one-time behavior, and the precondition.

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 one simple parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the main decision point (approval/coverage) and the idempotence behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing the destructive implication or routing relative to siblings, but those are mitigated by annotations and the clear action.

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 'plan_id' beyond the property name. Since plan_id is the only required parameter and is central to the call, the description should at least clarify that it identifies the proposed plan to submit.

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 ('Send'), identifies the resource ('a proposed plan'), and names the target ('the carrier'). It distinguishes the tool from proposal-creation siblings by describing a submission action, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

It states a clear precondition ('if a grant covers it or a person approves it') and the one-time nature of the action, giving implicit guidance on when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to the propose_* siblings.

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