plan_ensure_service

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool creates the page if missing, and mentions required access tokens. This covers the core behavior adequately, though it could detail idempotency or error handling.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded, and each sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, behavior, and prerequisites. It could benefit from mentioning the return value or idempotency, but overall it's 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 50% (dry_run lacks a description). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, leaving the dry_run parameter unexplained.

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's purpose: 'Ensure a service page exists under the configured Plans root. Creates if missing.' It uses a specific verb ('ensure') and resource ('service page'), and the name 'plan_ensure_service' aligns with this purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like 'plan_get' or 'plan_upsert'.

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 explicit prerequisites: 'Requires plan_configure + NOTION_TOKEN.' While it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it, the clear purpose implies its appropriate context.

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