save_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains important behaviors: requires a date, must use title verbatim, should read the date back to the user for confirmation, and the optional nature of ends_on. However, it doesn't specify the return value or side effects (e.g., does it overwrite existing plans?), but given the tool is less complex and the key behavioral traits are covered, a 4 is warranted.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value—examples, parameter instructions, and exclusion rules. It fits entirely in a few sentences without 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?

Given no output schema and a relatively simple 4-parameter tool, the description is complete: it defines input requirements, usage criteria, and confirmation behavior. The interdependency with other save tools (save_context_note, save_brand_truth) is clarified, and the schema covers all parameters.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it emphasizes that `title` must be verbatim, and `starts_on`/`ends_on` must be ISO dates, and clarifies the optionality of `ends_on`. It also explains how `kind` helps categorize but doesn't add much beyond the enum values. Overall, this goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 captures a 'DATED upcoming plan' with a specific verb ('Capture') and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like save_context_note and save_brand_truth by specifying what qualifies (dated plan) vs not (vague intentions, durable truths).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for dated upcoming plans with lead time) and when not to use (for vague intentions or durable truths), naming the alternative tools (save_context_note and save_brand_truth). Provides clear examples and instructions for handling date ranges.

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