create_context_edit_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: it explicitly states the tool is non-mutating, returns ranked candidates and stale-state guards, and requires review before mutation. This goes beyond the safety hints and clarifies the tool's behavior and output.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase contributes meaning. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (ranked candidates, stale-state guards) and the required next step (preview_edit_plan). It's complete enough for an AI to understand the tool's role, though it doesn't describe the exact structure of the returned data.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only implying that 'intent' drives candidate ranking. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 creates an edit-plan scaffold, specifying it's non-mutating and evidence-backed. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning preview_edit_plan as a subsequent step, showing its role in the workflow.

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 clearly implies this is the first step before mutation, instructing the model to review results and use preview_edit_plan before any mutation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_project_context or manage_project_context, leaving some room for interpretation.

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