save_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions storing the plan for execution but omits details like overwrite behavior, permissions, storage location, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that mutates state.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose and a key feature (plan_ref) front-loaded. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds meaning.

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?

The description is reasonably complete given three parameters and no output schema, but it lacks information about return values (e.g., success message, plan ID) and does not explain what happens if the plan already exists or if validation fails. Missing behavioral details reduce completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters, yet the description adds significant value: it clarifies default values for title (e.g., 'Inline plan' or 'Plan from file'), conditional requirements (content vs. plan_ref), and the behavior of plan_ref (loading file content and default title).

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 action ('Save an execution plan'), identifies the resource (plan), and explains the workflow (ChatGPT writes, PatchWarden stores). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_plan by focusing on saving.

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 explains the two main use cases: providing content directly or using plan_ref to load a file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, though this is mitigated since no sibling tool overlaps directly.

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