plan_edit

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

The annotations already establish that the tool is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating atomicity and the expected-revision concurrency control. It does not describe failure behavior on revision mismatch, but the core safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 the core operation front-loaded and no filler. It communicates atomicity, the action, the resource, and the concurrency expectation efficiently.

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 nested mutation tool, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to invoke it instead of plan_publish or plan_ack, and what happens if expected_revision is stale. However, the rich input schema and idempotent/non-destructive annotations cover much of the invocation detail, so the gaps are meaningful but not catastrophic.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only clarifies expected_revision and the general add/update operation. It does not explain project_id, request_id, session_id, or the task field semantics beyond what the schema constraints already show. Most parameter meaning must be derived from names and schema structure.

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 identifies the operation (atomically add or update plan tasks) and the key constraint (coordinator's expected revision). It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as plan_publish or plan_ack beyond the 'edit' in the name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like plan_publish, plan_ack, or plan_read. The description does not mention prerequisites, the role of the session, or what to do if the expected revision does not match. The agent must infer usage context from the schema and sibling names.

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