do_plan_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Record" implies a write, and the sentence about running the workflow check surfaces a genuine, non-obvious side effect, which is real value. However it does not say whether recording is idempotent, what the check does on failure, whether an existing result is overwritten, or what permissions are needed.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then the field list, with no filler. The brace-and-asterisk notation is compact but slightly cryptic and assumes the reader knows the convention for required versus optional keys.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a mutation-style tool in a large namespace of near-duplicate do_/dm_ siblings, the description never distinguishes itself from dm_plan_result and never explains the meaning of trial_id/pair_id/arm or the deterministic-check trigger condition, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the payload is a bare additionalProperties object, so the schema conveys nothing. The description fully compensates at the structural level by enumerating plan_id as required and transcript, final_output, cost, conflict, trial_id, pair_id, arm as optional. It does not explain what pair_id, arm, or conflict mean or what types they take, leaving some semantic gaps.

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?

"Record a planned run's result" gives a specific verb and resource, and the name-plus-description pair makes the plan-result trailing step understandable. It stops short of differentiating itself from the near-identical sibling dm_plan_result or from do_record, so an agent still has to infer which of the pair to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is called after do_plan_run, whether it can be called repeatedly for the same plan, or how it relates to do_record/do_outcome. The only conditional statement ("Runs the workflow check when deterministic") describes internal behavior rather than guiding tool selection.

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