Validate a plan and store it as the current active plan. Refuses invalid plans to maintain data integrity.
Validate again and store the plan as the current plan. Refuses invalid plans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | A valid ORP plan |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes | ||
| saved_at | Yes | ||
| validation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool re-validates the plan and refuses invalid inputs. This adds useful behavioral context, though it could more explicitly state what happens to the existing current plan when a new one is saved.
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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The core action ('store as current plan') is front-loaded, and the refusal behavior is added as a concise second clause.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: validating, storing, and refusing invalid plans. The main gap is that the structure and provenance of an 'ORP plan' rely on domain knowledge, but this is a minor omission given the output schema and 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 100%, with the 'plan' parameter described as 'A valid ORP plan'. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('store') and resource ('the plan as the current plan'), and immediately clarifies it rejects invalid plans. This distinguishes it from plan_validate, which presumably only validates without persisting, and from plan_get_current, which only reads.
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 implies the tool is used when a plan should be validated and persisted as the current plan. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like plan_validate, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.