Execute Large Feature Plan Compactly

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

Beyond the annotations' destructive flag, the description adds a meaningful behavioral rule: already-resolved sensitive subtasks can run as local-supervised, and any such task forces full aggregate-diff review by Claude. This helps the agent anticipate a mandatory review step and the special handling of sensitive subtasks.

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 filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat about sensitive subtasks is placed second, keeping the most important routing information visible.

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?

For a complex orchestrator with nested task objects, routing flags, validation commands, and rollback behavior, this description is too sparse. The input schema property names carry some meaning, but the description does not explain return behavior, task structure, or failure handling, and there is no output schema to fill the gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage on 9 parameters, the description should compensate for missing parameter documentation, but it only vaguely alludes to sensitive subtasks and review. It gives no guidance on constructing tasks, editableFiles, validation, rollbackPlanOnFailure, or the routing subfields.

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 identifies the tool as a large-feature orchestrator and clarifies that Claude owns planning/decomposition, which distinguishes it from single-task tools like execute_local_code_task. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related execute_local_code_plan or execute_local_code_plan_compact variants.

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?

It gives clear context that this is the preferred choice for large features and that Claude handles planning, so when to use it is implied. But it never names alternatives like execute_local_code_plan or says when the non-compact version should be preferred instead.

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