Create or overwrite a plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description's 'fully overwrite' confirms this but adds no major new behavioral detail beyond the 'mutable working documents' framing. With annotations present, the added value is modest.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a meaningful comparison. No filler or redundant content.

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 complete parameter schema, annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, an output schema present, and sibling differentiation, the description is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, with detailed explanations for both parameters including slugification and file replacement. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create or fully overwrite a named project plan') with clear scope. It also differentiates from siblings by contrasting plans with decisions.

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 provides context that plans are mutable working documents 'unlike decisions', indicating when this tool should be used over the decision-recording alternative. It does not explicitly enumerate all sibling alternatives or state when not to use it for other tools.

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