plan_edit

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

The description discloses two important behaviors beyond the annotations: the operation is atomic, and it depends on an expected revision. However, it does not state what happens on a revision mismatch, whether updates are full or partial replacements, or any failure semantics. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so some burden is lifted.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Atomically', 'add or update', 'plan tasks', and 'expected revision' each carry meaningful information, so the sentence earns its place despite the complexity of the schema.

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 mutation tool with a nested request object, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, one sentence is insufficient. Missing context includes how to choose add vs update operations, the role of request_id/session_id, and the behavior when expected_revision is stale. The schema provides structure but not the operational context an agent needs.

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 parameter meaning. It only explains the role of expected_revision, while leaving project_id, request_id, session_id, and the structure/semantics of operations largely to the schema. The nested PlanAdd/PlanUpdate definitions are self-describing at a type level, but the description adds almost no guidance on how to construct a valid request.

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 action ('add or update plan tasks') and a resource, and adds a distinctive concurrency aspect ('using the coordinator's expected revision'). It is clear enough to distinguish plan_edit from read-style siblings like plan_read, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 implies the intended use case: atomically modifying plan tasks while respecting a revision guard. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention sibling tools or conditions that would route an agent elsewhere.

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