Preflight Legacy TD Patch

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the tool is legacy and slated for removal, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 plus a parenthetical, front-loading the critical legacy warning. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool has one parameter, output schema exists (implied), and the description fully covers its purpose, legacy status, and replacement path. It is complete for a legacy validation tool.

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% for the single 'plan' parameter. The description reiterates 'Plan dict from td_plan_patch to validate', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly states it is a read-only validation tool for legacy td_plan_patch dicts and distinguishes it from the preferred BrainPlan path (td_brain_plan → td_brain_execute). This provides a specific verb-resource pairing and differentiates from siblings.

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 explicitly advises to prefer td_brain_plan → td_brain_execute for new builds and notes the tool is slated for removal in v3.0. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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