Update the project plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly warns that this is a full-content replacement affecting a shared source of truth read by every teammate's agent, which is crucial context. It does not mention recovery or permissions, but the destructive overwrite nature is well conveyed.

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 focused sentences convey the operation, the precondition, the warning, and the rationale. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 straightforward document-replacement tool, the description covers the essential behavior, the risk of overwriting shared content, and the recommended read-before-write flow. It doesn't describe the return value, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that this is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'content' described. The description adds useful meaning by mapping the 'doc' parameter to requirements.md or design.md, but it does not clarify the optional 'memberName' parameter, leaving a gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: it replaces the full content of one plan document (requirements.md or design.md) with new markdown. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_plan and other task-status tools.

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 procedural guidance: read get_plan first, edit the whole document, and do not append blindly. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternative update paths, so it falls just short of a top score.

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