plan_ack

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the write-but-idempotent behavior. The description adds the nuance that recording is based on explicit observation, but it does not disclose side effects, duplicate handling, or what happens when the revision is already recorded.

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, front-loaded with the core verb and object, and every word carries meaning. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema and a nested input schema at 0% description coverage, an agent only learns the general intent. It cannot confidently fill project_id/request_id or understand the acknowledgment semantics beyond what the annotations imply, making the description under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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. It maps 'session' to session_id and 'plan revision' to plan_revision, but leaves project_id and request_id entirely unaddressed. For a nested required object with four fields, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct the 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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('plan revision'), with the scope 'this session explicitly observed'. This distinguishes it from obvious siblings: plan_read reads, plan_edit/plan_publish modify or publish, while plan_ack records an observation. However, it doesn't explicitly name the distinction with siblings.

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 appropriate trigger: use when the current session has actually observed a plan revision. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names and general context.

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