ingest_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so in detail: it explains the creation order, the optional epic restriction, the local-to-UUID manifest return, and the critical merge-vs-replace semantics on re-ingest. It also discloses the destructive effect of overwrite=True (drops anything not produced by this call), which is exactly the kind of side-effect information an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return, then moves into necessary merge semantics. It is dense and somewhat long, but the complexity of the operation justifies most of the length. Minor parenthetical-heavy passages could be tightened, but no sentence is wholly wasteful.

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 absence of annotations, the presence of an output schema, and the tool's mutation complexity, the description is largely complete: it covers side effects, merge behavior, and return format. The main remaining gap is the missing semantic definition of plan_name and the lack of explicit routing guidance against sibling tools.

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 all parameters. It clearly explains only_epics as restricting to specific epic summaries and overwrite=True as restoring wholesale-replace behavior. However, the required plan_name parameter is never explicitly defined (e.g., whether it is a saved plan name, path, or identifier), leaving one of three parameters only implicitly covered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Push a saved plan into Plane.' It also describes the resulting actions (creates epics, then linked issues) and the return manifest, giving the agent a precise sense of what the tool does distinct from siblings like save_plan or list_plans.

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?

Implies usage when a plan has been saved and should be pushed into Plane, and it clarifies when to use only_epics and overwrite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (save_plan, decompose_plan, patch_plan) or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names.

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