Plan Legacy TD Patch

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

The description states 'construction' (implying mutation), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction; the agent cannot tell if the tool is read-only or modifies state. No additional behavioral details are provided beyond the annotations. The inconsistency undermines trust.

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 two sentences, front-loading the legacy status and preferred alternatives. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 description covers deprecation and usage guidance, but due to the behavioral contradiction, it is incomplete about what the tool actually does (read vs write). With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the core behavior conflict is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately marks the tool as legacy and states it is for 'typed PatchPlan construction'. It explicitly names preferred alternatives (td_brain_plan → td_brain_execute), distinguishing it from siblings. The verb 'construct' and resource 'PatchPlan' are specific.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: only for compatibility or expert typed PatchPlan construction. It explicitly says to prefer td_brain_plan → td_brain_execute for new builds, and notes the tool is slated for removal in v3.0. This provides both context and exclusions.

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