run_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical failure behavior (cancellation of the rest of the chain if one fails) and the waiting behavior (up to wait_s). This is valuable beyond what the schema provides. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or return format, though the output schema likely covers the latter.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action (queue a sequence of actions), lists the action types, and includes the most important behavioral nuance (chain cancellation) in a compact form.

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 complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: chaining, cancellation on failure, and waiting. It does not explicitly mention that it can replace multiple individual calls, but the sibling list makes that inference straightforward. The schema fills remaining parameter details, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 67% with descriptions for wait_s and replace. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific detail—it only references wait_s implicitly and does not elaborate on steps beyond listing action types. The schema already documents PlanStep properties thoroughly, so the description adds little over the schema.

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 queues a sequence of actions, explicitly listing the action types (craft, insert, extract, mine, place, set_recipe, rotate, walk_to). This distinguishes it from single-action siblings like craft_items or extract_items, and the phrase 'chained jobs' conveys the batch nature.

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 mentions waiting behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus individual action tools or when not to use it. The purpose implies batching, but no alternatives or exclusions are named. The schema descriptions for wait_s and replace add some context, but the description itself provides no direct usage guidance.

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