plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavioral fact: resolution happens without execution, and the returned plan 'carries the exact command it would run'. It does not address permissions, validation/failure behavior for bad params, or whether resolution has any side effects, so transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the non-execution constraint front-loaded before the params cross-reference. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not owed, and the description answers the decisive question (this plans, it does not execute) plus the params-typing question via the action_run cross-reference. The remaining gap is the unaddressed selectors/runtime/include_dependencies semantics in an otherwise annotation-free, six-parameter tool.

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 50% across six parameters, and the description adds real value on two of them: it maps the enumerated operations to start/stop/restart/action and says params is the same typed object action_run takes. It says nothing about runtime, selectors, or include_dependencies, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (resolve) and resource (a versioned start/stop/restart/action plan), and immediately scopes it with 'without executing it', which separates it from the sibling mutators start, stop, restart, and action_run. An agent can tell what this tool does and does not do without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'without executing it' implies the dry-run/preview use case and points at action_run as the executing counterpart for parameterized actions, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no routing rule such as 'call plan before start', and no stated conditions or exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than instructed.

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