bw_create_planning_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the object is 'Saved active' immediately, and InfoArea/package default from the first step's aggregation level and "$TMP" respectively. It stops short of permissions required, error conditions (e.g. a nonexistent filter reference), or how activation failure is surfaced, which for an unannotated mutation tool leaves real gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and artifact, then the composition detail, then the defaults. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the ordering follows what an agent needs to know first.

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 6-parameter create tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers composition, execution order, and defaulting well. It omits what the call returns (e.g. the created sequence name/status) and any failure modes, which is acceptable without an output schema but leaves the preconditions for the referenced filter/function unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds meaning by explaining the execution-order semantics of the steps array and the defaulting rules for info_area and package. It reinforces rather than merely repeats the schema, though most of the default behavior is already documented per-parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a planning sequence') and immediately characterizes what the artifact contains ('its steps in execution order: planning functions, each with the filter that selects its data, and input templates'). That composition detail cleanly separates it from the sibling create_planning_function and create_planning_filter tools, which build the components rather than the container.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool to use when assembling an ordered sequence of planning steps, and the step-type semantics ('a planning_function step runs the function... an input_template step only opens that selection') hint at intent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as the referenced filter or planning function having to exist first, and no routing against siblings like bw_update_planning_sequence.

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