prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: that steer/days are inert when topics is supplied. It still omits whether generation overwrites an existing plan, permission/prerequisite needs, and any side effects on stored 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the core capability is stated first and the mode-specific caveat second.

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 5-parameter, 2-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers modes but leaves the campaign/slug requirements and the resulting artifact unexplained, so it is only adequate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that topics triggers an append mode which renders steer and days ineffective, clarifying parameter interaction beyond the schema's per-field docs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: generating or appending topics to a pre-interview prep plan, which clearly distinguishes it from the read-side sibling read_prep. It does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It describes two operational modes (generate a fresh plan vs. append topics) and notes steer/days are ignored in append mode. However, it never says when an agent should choose generate versus append, nor how it relates to read_prep or list_interviews, leaving the usage decision implicit.

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