update_hierarchy_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of regenerating HTML rendering and the requirement of exactly one mutation. It does not discuss reversibility or error states, but the core mutative and rendering behavior is clearly communicated.

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 compact and front-loaded. Four sentences cover the primary action, path prerequisites, target format, and mutation exclusivity. Every sentence adds essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key operational constraints (mutual exclusion, path validation, target matching). It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and the description provides enough guidance for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that exactly one of the five mutation parameters must be supplied, which the schema does not enforce. It also adds context about the plan path being beneath configured workspace roots.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply exactly one targeted plan mutation and regenerate its HTML rendering.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_hierarchy_plan (creation) and render_hierarchy_html (pure rendering). The listed mutation types further clarify the scope.

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 provides clear context by stating the tool is for applying a mutation and lists the specific mutation types. It also gives constraints (absolute path, exact target). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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