screen_to_plane_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the output structure and that it is 'structured output' rather than a direct Plane API call, but it does not explicitly state whether this tool has side effects, requires authentication, or only reads the screen.

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 well-structured and informative: purpose first, followed by core output constituents, then workflow context. The final sentence is slightly promotional but still clarifies the overall intent, so no sentence feels wasted.

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 has no output schema, it needs to describe its returns, and it does with title, base64 preview, checklist, and labels. The absence of a precise output contract and clarification about whether the issue is actually created kept it just short of a 5.

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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the parameter baseline is 3. The description adds that screenName becomes the issue title and that HTML components become the checklist, but it delegates most parameter meaning to the schema rather than adding additional value.

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 names a specific verb ('Creates'), a specific resource ('Stitch screen'), and a specific deliverable ('structured output ... suitable for creating a Plane issue'). It also enumerates what the output contains—title, base64 image, checklist, labels—which clearly distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like screen_to_react or get_screen.

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 makes the intended workflow explicit: converting a Stitch screen into a PM-tool-ready issue. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, such as get_screen or screen_to_react, so an agent must infer the use case rather than receive an explicit routing rule.

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