plan_photosPlans photo and video filing from an inbox into year-based folders under a photos root, assigning each item to a year from its capture date.
Plan rows for photos/videos: <photos_root>//, year from the capture date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inbox | Yes | ||
| plan_name | No | current | |
| photos_root | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "plan_photosOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose that this is a non-destructive but non-read-only operation, and the description adds useful planning behavior by specifying the destination path shape and that the year comes from the capture date. However, it does not explain what the tool writes, how it treats an existing plan, or what side effects occur, so behavioral disclosure remains limited.
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 compact sentence with the core planning behavior and path pattern front-loaded. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's output convention, with no filler.
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 no output schema and three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is too incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It gives the destination path pattern but omits the role of inbox, the meaning of plan_name, where planned rows are stored, and how this step relates to plan_review or plan_apply.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only explains photos_root indirectly through the path pattern and mentions the year rule. It says nothing about the required inbox parameter or the optional plan_name parameter, leaving two of three parameters semantically unclear.
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 gives a specific verb-resource pair ("Plan rows for photos/videos") and clarifies the resulting path pattern, so the agent knows this tool constructs planned destination rows. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby plan lifecycle siblings such as plan_add, plan_review, or plan_apply, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plan_add, plan_review, plan_check, or plan_apply. It also omits prerequisites, such as whether an existing plan must exist or when plan_name should be non-default.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.