Change plan versions

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

Annotations already flag mutating/destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: duplicate copies the active version, new starts an empty one, both switch to the new version, and edits apply to the active version. It doesn't mention irreversibility or authorization, but it discloses key side effects beyond the annotations.

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 a single dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause conveys a distinct operation or behavioral note, and the action-parameter syntax is compact and scannable.

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, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers the critical remaining gaps: action semantics and routing to the variant list tool. The only minor ambiguity is conditional parameter requirements for each action, but the action patterns make these reasonably inferable.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds substantial semantic value by mapping each action to its parameter pattern: duplicate/new take optional names, switch/rename/delete target an index, and rename requires both i and name. It also clarifies the meaning of actions (copy vs. empty vs. switch) beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Change the plan versions (tabs)') and enumerates the exact operations: duplicate, new, switch, rename, delete. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'variants' tool by explicitly naming it as the list tool.

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 gives clear routing guidance with 'The list is the variants tool', telling the agent to use the sibling for listing and this tool for changing versions. It doesn't spell out every alternative, but the operation list and resource scope make the intended context clear.

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