execute_capture_plan

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

Annotations already indicate destructive/non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds useful context beyond them: the token is single-use and the expected follow-up is get_run. This provides concrete behavioral expectations that annotations alone do not convey.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Run one current plan with side effects') and includes the most critical behavioral constraint (single-use token) in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the basic action and a key side effect, but it omits prerequisites (e.g., that a plan must exist and be 'current') and does not explain what 'side effects' entail. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some gaps for an agent to fill.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter (plan_id) with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'current plan' but does not explicitly explain that plan_id refers to a plan created by plan_capture, nor does it clarify the format or source of the ID. The agent must infer the meaning from the tool name and context, which is insufficient.

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 ('Run'), resource ('current plan'), and key trait ('with side effects'). It distinguishes itself from planning tools (plan_capture) and detached capture (start_detached_capture) by emphasizing 'one current plan' and the single-use token, though it could be clearer about what a 'current plan' refers to.

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 instruction 'then get_run' implies a sequential workflow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_detached_capture or execute_reduction. No exclusions or specific use-case conditions are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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