Plan PhishFort Change

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

The description says 'Does not mutate', but annotations have readOnlyHint=false, implying possible side effects (e.g., creating a plan object). This contradiction undermines transparency. No other behavioral details like authentication or rate limits are provided.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for a planning tool with three parameters. It does not explain what 'planning' entails, how parameters affect the plan, or how to use the approval fields. More detail is needed for effective use.

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 description provides no information about the three parameters (params, operation, expires_in_seconds). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Plan a PhishFort write.' and adds 'Does not mutate.' which distinguishes it from actual mutation tools. This is a specific verb-resource combination that differentiates it from siblings like phishfort_report_incident.

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 gives clear usage context: it plans a write, does not mutate, and the output ('approval fields') should be used on write tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with other non-mutating tools among siblings.

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