ralph.replace_fix_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the destructive nature (Replace the file), the conditional preservation behavior (completed items can be kept via preserveCompleted), and a content-level defer syntax. It does not spell out the exact effect of preserveCompleted:false or mention return values, but the main side effects are reasonably transparent.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the phase/flag guidance and the defer syntax. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler or 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?

For a simple two-parameter replacement tool with no output schema, the description covers the target file, the replacement semantics, the preserveCompleted flag, and a content-level defer feature. It leaves some details implicit, such as what qualifies as a completed item or what the tool returns, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It directly explains preserveCompleted (preserve completed items; use true when refining) and gives content-format guidance through the defer comment syntax, giving both parameters useful context beyond their raw names and types.

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 names the exact resource (.ralph/fix_plan.md) and a specific action (Replace), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings like write_plan and write_prd by targeting a distinct file with a replace-semantics operation.

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 clear context: in Phase 2/3, use preserveCompleted:true when refining. This is practical guidance for when and how to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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