glm_5_plan_code_change

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

Discloses non-mutating behavior and approval gate, but no details on what 'persist' means, side effects, or error conditions. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, but is not structured for easy scanning. Appropriate length given complexity.

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?

Incomplete for a planning tool in a workflow. No output schema, no description of return values or how to use the persisted plan. Lacks details to differentiate from siblings like propose_patch.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter explanations. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should clarify constraints, especially for operations and commands.

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 'plan's an approval-gated code change' and specifies it persists operations without mutating the repository, distinguishing it from mutation tools like apply_approved_patch.

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?

Usage is implied by contrasting with application tools, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given beyond the name and description.

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