Plan Collection Update

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the staged nature (must be previewed then executed) and discloses the side effect of making membership visible to external feeds (e.g., Meta catalog). This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradicting them.

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 succinct and well-structured: three sentences covering purpose, primary use case with example, and critical workflow constraint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case, the meaning of rule_set, and the required staging workflow. It does not explicitly state what the plan returns, but the presence of sibling status tools and the plan/preview/execute pattern makes this less critical. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by giving a concrete example (TAG EQUALS 'or-cocktail-dresses') and explaining that supplying rule_set converts a manual collection to automated. This enhances understanding of the rule_set parameter beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Plan an update to a collection.' It elaborates on the primary use case (converting MANUAL to AUTOMATED) and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting 'Staged: must be previewed then executed.' This distinguishes it from preview and execute tools.

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 on when to use the tool (for planning updates, especially conversions to automated) and indirectly indicates the workflow via 'Staged: must be previewed then executed.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the staging note strongly implies the proper sequence with preview/execute siblings.

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