create_action_plans_person

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that Action Plans are deprecated, which is important behavioral context, and the endpoint plus 'Apply' communicate that this is a write operation. However, it does not describe side effects, idempotency, or response behavior, so gaps remain.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the deprecation warning and sibling alternatives in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the essential context: what the tool does, that it is deprecated, and which tools to use instead. With no output schema and no annotations, it could have added a note about the response or side effects, but for an agent deciding whether to call this tool, the provided guidance is strong and sufficient.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond stating the action itself, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for full coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply an Action Plan to a person' and backs it with the exact endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from the automationsPerson siblings by explicitly positioning this as the legacy alternative. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the user names an existing legacy Action Plan. It names the preferred alternatives (create_automations_person, update_automations_person) and states to prefer them for new workflows. This is exemplary routing behavior.

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