gis.run_plan

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'execute', implying side effects, but discloses nothing about permissions, validation of the plan, failure modes, or reversibility. Only the existence of an output schema relieves it of describing return values.

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, the core action front-loaded. No wasted words, though the trailing workflow line could have carried more routing information for the same length.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema, the basics are present, and the plan provenance note is helpful. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the absence of side-effect, permission, and gis.run-vs-run_plan guidance leaves real gaps.

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 0% for the single plan_json string, so the description must compensate. It does partially: it tells the agent the JSON typically comes from gis.plan and may be edited before execution, which is meaningful semantics for an otherwise undocumented string. It still says nothing about format, size, or how invalid plans are handled.

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 and resource: execute a plan JSON, plus the provenance of the input ('e.g. from gis.plan, possibly edited'). This differentiates it from gis.plan (which produces the JSON) without needing the schema, though it doesn't contrast with the similarly named gis.run.

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 second sentence gives a workflow context (plan -> review -> edit -> execute), which implies when to use it. But it never says when NOT to use it, and crucially does not distinguish it from the sibling gis.run, so an agent must guess which entry point applies.

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