create_hierarchy_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral constraints: source/theme paths must be absolute within workspace roots, and output defaults to the authorized server project directory. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing files, required permissions, or the nature of outputs beyond the stated files.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding necessary constraints. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and key constraints. It lacks guidance on selecting this tool over sibling tools, but otherwise provides enough context for safe invocation regarding path boundaries and default output. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that source/theme paths must be absolute and that output_folder defaults to the authorized server project directory when null, which is not explicit in the schema. This ties the parameters together with a shared boundary rule.

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 uses the verb 'Create' and specifies the resource: a durable hierarchy JSON plan and its same-named HTML rendering. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_hierarchy_plan and render_hierarchy_html, which imply modification or rendering of existing plans.

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 usage by describing what the tool creates, and it provides path constraints ('must be absolute beneath configured workspace roots') and the default output location. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or 'when not to use' conditions.

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