plan_ack

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the contextual constraint that the tool records what the session explicitly observed, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as duplicate-ack handling or side effects beyond the annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'Record' gives the action, 'plan revision' gives the resource, and 'this session explicitly observed' gives the scoping condition.

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 write/ack tool with nested schema and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate because the schema defines the required fields and annotations define idempotency/safety. However, it leaves parameter semantics and alternative usage insufficiently explained, so an agent might not fully understand how to populate all required fields or when to prefer a sibling tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It maps loosely to 'plan_revision' and 'session_id' through 'plan revision' and 'this session', but it does not explain the 'request' wrapper, 'project_id', or 'request_id' semantics, leaving an agent to infer how to construct the required request object.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and a specific resource ('the plan revision'), scoped by 'this session' and 'explicitly observed'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like plan_read, plan_edit, and plan_publish by indicating an acknowledgment/recording action rather than retrieval, modification, or publication.

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 phrase 'this session explicitly observed' implies the condition under which the tool should be used: only when the session has actually seen the plan revision. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as plan_read or plan_edit for other workflows.

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