iptime_plan_change

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral facts: the plan is expiring, immutable, and causes no immediate setting change. This is valuable because readOnlyHint is false and destructiveHint is false, so the agent needs to know the write is to the plan store rather than the router. It does not mention expiration duration or how the plan is later applied, but the most safety-relevant behavior is disclosed.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The clarifying statement about not changing settings earns its place.

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?

The core workflow premise, safety profile, and dependencies are sufficiently covered by the description and schema, and the sibling set makes the follow-on apply/cancel/list workflow discoverable. There is no output schema and the description does not state what the created plan returns, which is a minor gap for an agent that may want to track the plan.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no new parameter semantics, but the schema already documents that operation comes from iptime_list_operations, params is arbitrary JSON, and router_id is optional.

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 verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('expiring immutable plan for a router change'). The follow-up 'No setting is changed by this tool' differentiates it from apply/change operations and makes the tool's role clear among its 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?

It clearly establishes when to use this tool: to create a plan rather than make an actual router change. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as iptime_apply_change or the specialized plan_firmware_upgrade/plan_config_restore tools, nor state when those should be preferred.

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