goldhold_plan_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that this is a mutating creation action and reveals the return shape ('plan_slug and task IDs'), which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it does not explain persistence, idempotency, failure behavior, or what happens to already existing plans, so transparency is only partially complete.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that efficiently names the action, the included components, and the return values. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too incomplete. It does not explain which parameters are required, how PRD/manifest relate to actual fields, or when this should be used instead of sibling tools like goldhold_plan_task or goldhold_plan_checkpoint. The return value hint helps, but significant operational context is missing.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most required and optional fields. The description adds a conceptual grouping ('PRD, manifest, tasks, facts, asset refs') that is not present in the schema, but it does not explain how PRD and manifest map to specific schema properties. It also adds no field-level detail for nested objects like refs and facts, 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?

The description states a precise action ('Create a new plan') and identifies the key components included in the call: PRD, manifest, tasks, facts, and asset refs. It also names the return values ('plan_slug and task IDs'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that close, checkpoint, restore, or add single pieces to a plan.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as goldhold_plan_task, goldhold_plan_fact, or goldhold_plan_restore. The phrase 'in one call' hints at bulk creation, but there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of a sibling alternative.

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