change_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about 'bounded change scope' and 'path-derived' computation but no deeper behavioral details beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Single sentence, 14 words, no fluff. However, conciseness sacrifices completeness given tool complexity.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, enums, and a large sibling set, the description is too brief. It does not explain key terms like 'direct surfaces' or 'one-hop dependent surfaces', and omits any guidance on required parameters or typical use.

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 0%, but the description does not explain any parameters. Parameters like startEntity, targetEntity, direction, traversalDepth have no additional meaning provided. The description fails to clarify the complex nested object parameters.

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 the tool returns 'path-derived direct surfaces, one-hop dependent surfaces, and an explicit dependency order' for bounded change scope. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like graph_path or flow_map.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., graph_neighbors, graph_path). No exclusions or context for appropriate usage.

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