plan_day

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does name the side-effect target ('Adds task IDs to planned_task_ids'), which is useful. However it never says whether existing planned IDs are replaced or appended to, whether this requires an existing plan/day record, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the side effect. Slightly terse for the amount of context an agent actually needs, but nothing wasteful.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. It still leaves unanswered the relationship to the daily-recommendation siblings and whether the plan is merged or overwritten.

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 100%, so all three parameters (date, notes, task_ids) are already documented with formats and defaults. The description adds no syntax or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Plan tasks') scoped to a date, which is clear enough for an agent to know what it does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like recommend_daily_tasks or seed_tasks_from_projects, which also populate a day's plan.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. the two recommend_daily_tasks* siblings or seed_tasks_from_projects, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from 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.