Plan Operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: 'short-lived' (expiration), 'approval-required' (dependency on approval), 'bounded' (limits), and 'single owned fixture Actor' (scope restriction). However, it does not mention error conditions, side effects, or validation specifics.

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, efficient sentence with active verbs and a clear front-loaded structure. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with six required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It covers the overall purpose and a couple of behavioral traits, but leaves out parameter semantics, return values, validation rules, and explicit workflow integration. The sibling names help but do not compensate for the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter-specific meaning. It only refers to a 'bounded request' generically. None of the six required parameters are explained, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 validates a bounded request and creates a short-lived approval-required plan. It specifies the exact resource (single owned fixture Actor) and distinguishes itself from siblings (approve, execute, read) by describing a distinct planning phase.

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 implies this is the initial step in a plan-approve-execute-read workflow, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or state exclusions. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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