plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discharges it well: "without touching Live" discloses non-mutation, and mentioning "anything refused" and "devices it would need added" reveals refusal and side-condition behavior. It does not address persistence, auth, or failure modes, but the key safety trait is explicit.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the goal:/track: layout is structurally scannable with no filler. Slight deduction for jargon density that forces the agent to infer domain meanings.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return values needn't be re-explained), the description covers both parameters, both goal modes, non-mutation, and refusal/device-addition behavior. Remaining gaps are undefined domain terms ("club floor", "mix map") and error/failure behavior, which are minor against the strong param coverage.

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%, yet the description fully compensates: it enumerates goal's valid values with their distinct effects and explains track's override-of-owner behavior. This is exactly the compensation needed when the schema is silent.

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?

"Plan moves toward the target without touching Live" states a specific verb and resource, and the explicit reference to a "proposal id for apply()" differentiates it from the apply sibling. Minor deduction for domain jargon ("club floor", "mix map's owner") that assumes insider knowledge an agent won't have.

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 gives meaningful context for goal selection (“lowend” vs “club_ready”) and the track override semantics, and it implies the plan→apply workflow via "returns a proposal id for apply()." However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance against other planning/verification siblings like iterate, verify, or monitor.

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