publish_plan

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important context: it appends outside the workspace and never edits files or executes commands. This is meaningful because readOnlyHint=false, so the extra clarification of scope is valuable. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable safety clarification.

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?

The description plus annotations cover side effects and scope decently, and an output schema exists. However, for a tool with six required parameters and zero schema-level descriptions, the overall context is thin: it does not specify where 'outside the workspace' means, how validation works, or how idempotency is expected to be used.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six required parameters. The phrase 'validated plan record' gives high-level context, but leaves the semantics of fields like idempotency, baseCommit, iteration, and steps to inference.

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 ('Append') and a specific resource ('validated plan record outside the workspace'), which clearly distinguishes it from workspace-oriented siblings and from publish_review. It is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a validated plan needs to be persisted outside the workspace. It also hints at what it does not do ('never edits files or executes commands'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus publish_review or other siblings.

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