execute_collection_plan

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and non-read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by noting the 'restricted collector broker' (which implies access restrictions) and 'short-lived and single-use' (which explains the destructive nature: the plan is consumed). This is helpful but could be more explicit about side effects like plan invalidation after execution.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and includes only essential qualifiers ('restricted collector broker', 'short-lived', 'single-use'). Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, output schema present, annotations present), the description covers the core purpose and constraints. It could mention what the output represents or what 'restricted broker' means in practice, but the existing annotations and output schema fill in enough gaps for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 0% for the only parameter (plan_id). The description mentions 'previously planned' but never explicitly maps to the plan_id parameter, its format, or how to obtain it. It implies the parameter is the plan identifier but does not compensate for the complete lack of schema description, leaving the agent to guess the exact semantics.

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 ('Execute') and names the resource ('previously planned PID collection'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like plan_automatic_collection or collect_profile. It also scopes the action to 'one' plan and highlights the 'restricted collector broker', making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 states clear context for when to use the tool (when you have a previously planned PID collection) and adds a critical constraint (plans are short-lived and single-use). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the implication that planning happens elsewhere (e.g., plan_automatic_collection) is strong enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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