mutations_acknowledge_high_risk_plan

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds the nuanced context of 'first interactive approval,' implying a workflow step, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or failure behavior.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, zero filler. Appropriate length, and every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

With an output schema present but no param descriptions, no usage guidance, and only one contextual hint about high-risk plans, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently integrate this tool into a mutation workflow.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on plan_id or plan_hash. There is no added meaning beyond parameter names; an agent must guess the hash's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb 'Record' and identifies the resource as a 'high-risk plan' with the scope 'first interactive approval required.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like apply, cancel, or plan mutations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus mutations_plan_mutations, mutations_cancel_mutation_plan, or mutations_apply_mutation_plan. It does not mention prerequisites, workflow position, or exclusions.

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