plan_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: task inheritance of fields, optional checklist creation, and the return value. However, it omits potential side effects like atomicity, failure modes, or permissions, which would enrich transparency.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The opening phrase 'Break a feature down in ONE call' immediately conveys the core value. Every sentence adds substantive information.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, inheritance rules, and return values. It does not explain prerequisites like project existence, but the schema's required fields imply the minimum. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the inheritance relationship between top-level fields (importance_level_id, default_category_id, board_id, milestone_id) and task-level overrides, and introduces sub_tasks as checklists. It does not cover every parameter like default_estimated_cost, but provides valuable context for the most complex interactions.

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 states that the tool breaks a feature into a user story and child tasks in one call, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_work_item and add_subtask by being the 'fast path' for this combined operation.

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 description explicitly says 'This is the fast path for 'turn this feature into a story with tasks'', giving clear context for when to use it. It implies alternatives (manual step-by-step creation) without naming them explicitly, but the sibling list offers the contrast.

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