discard_plan

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

Annotations already cover mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing irreversibility ('can never be applied') and the scope (only proposed plans), which go beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or behavior for already-applied or nonexistent plans.

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 nine-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the critical consequence. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail; every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description captures the core operation and its irreversible effect. Yet it omits practical context such as the source of plan_id, interactions with related plans, and error conditions for invalid targets, leaving the agent to fill in workflow 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 compensate. It clarifies that plan_id refers to a proposed plan, giving some meaning beyond the bare schema field name. However, it does not explain the ID format, where to obtain plan_id (e.g., from list_plans or a propose_* tool), or what happens if the plan is not in a proposed state. Partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 ('Drop') with a specific resource ('a proposed plan') and states the consequence ('so it can never be applied'). It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings: apply_plan applies a plan, propose_* create plans, and list_plans lists them, so an agent can select this tool unambiguously.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus apply_plan or the propose_* siblings, and no when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the intended workflow entirely from sibling names and context.

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